Fast and Safe

[speedpro]

Someone has probably already noted this but I can't be bothered checking.

Well worth checking out this site: http://www.fastandsafe.org/site.aspx/Pages/home

The guys running it seem reasonably clever and seem to have valid arguments.

[dhunt]

Looks quite interesting, just having a read about the ltsa scare tactics.

[MSTRS]

This site is certainly interesting. However, the policy makers (LTSA) won't take a blind bit of notice, will they?

[**R1**]

This site is certainly interesting. However, the policy makers (LTSA) won't take a blind bit of notice, will they?
where's the money in that??

[MSTRS]

where's the money in that??
Absofrekkinlutely. What's the grip with this 'suzi/honda crusha'?

[Krayy]

One thing that I can't find reference to on that site is the inherent ability that some people have to be able to control a vehicle at higher speeds that others. Some people on the roads won't go at 100 as they just can't handle it mentally or physically.

If the LTSA introduced some form of psychiatric testing and special license conditions and maybe something like an "S" plate for "Slow" or "Stupid" before allowing a driver on the road, that may stop the accidents caused by these timid folk who are so unpredicatable in their actions, such as braking at EVERY corner, even the loong sweeping ones, or cutting across 3 lanes of traffic to get to an off ramp.

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.

[**R1**]

Absofrekkinlutely. What's the grip with this 'suzi/honda crusha'?
its more of a poke :Pokey: at a few KBers like biff baff, WINJA, and MSTRS....oooppps thats you :kick: :devil2:

[Waylander]

One thing that I can't find reference to on that site is the inherent ability that some people have to be able to control a vehicle at higher speeds that others. Some people on the roads won't go at 100 as they just can't handle it mentally or physically.

If the LTSA introduced some form of psychiatric testing and special license conditions and maybe something like an "S" plate for "Slow" or "Stupid" before allowing a driver on the road, that may stop the accidents caused by these timid folk who are so unpredicatable in their actions, such as braking at EVERY corner, even the loong sweeping ones, or cutting across 3 lanes of traffic to get to an off ramp.

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.
Or they hit a biker and its one more reason "bikes are dangerous"

[**R1**]

One thing that I can't find reference to on that site is the inherent ability that some people have to be able to control a vehicle at higher speeds that others. Some people on the roads won't go at 100 as they just can't handle it mentally or physically.

If the LTSA introduced some form of psychiatric testing and special license conditions and maybe something like an "S" plate for "Slow" or "Stupid" before allowing a driver on the road, that may stop the accidents caused by these timid folk who are so unpredicatable in their actions, such as braking at EVERY corner, even the loong sweeping ones, or cutting across 3 lanes of traffic to get to an off ramp.

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.
:laugh: :laugh: so every cage driver would have an "s"on there plate :Pokey: :laugh:

[Krayy]

:laugh: :laugh: so every cage driver would have an "s"on there plate :Pokey: :laugh:
Hehe, never thought of that....

[bugjuice]

something that's pissed me off for a long time is people sat in the middle/right hand lane. In the UK where I learnt to drive, you get a good bollockin for doing that. It's dangerous and slows other traffic down. I emailed the LTSA and asked why the same isn't done here, it'd help move the traffic etc, and make the roads and drivers that bit more predictable too. Their responce? Basically they said NZ doesn't have enough traffic to make this a viable law to pass. I mentioned about slower vehicles (trucks etc) and they said there's only a 10kph difference in speed limits, so there's no point in enforcing that either. So we're stuck behind 3 trucks using up all the lanes while we wait for them to get over the bridge. Fuckin stupid.

The laws on the roads here are dated. Some are just stupid. They're spending billions on the roads to try to improve traffic flow, and while I agree we do need a lot of the new roads being built, they could start with some simple things that aren't going to cost us anything. Learn from other countries with bigger traffic issues, and see what they've done. Hell, we're tiny compared to most places, and the Gov can't get this right.. makes you wonder..

The other thing is the current technology of vehicles too. I've heard an intersting debate, which will go on for ever and ever. I ride a fairly newly designed bike (yeah, ok, it's been superseeded already) which has been tested to some incredable speeds of which mine, and many more bikes and cages are able to handle. In fact, it could be fair to argue that they're safer and more stable at higher speeds, so if vehicles are safer, faster and more reliable, then why aren't the speed limits reflected in this? Not saying freeways should be 200kph zones (as much as I'd like), but an increase to reflect the advance over the years. Germany doesn't have speed limits on a lot of their Autobhanns (how ever it's spelt).. I saw a doco on one guy who drives his Maserati to work and back at 200mph.. pretty quick.

On the other side of that, technology has advanced heaps - but have the operators of the technology? The faster you go, the faster things go wrong. Can you imagine a groupd of us bikers doing a fair 150kph, then granny comes into view doing her 65kph..?? ain't gonna be pretty. Some people can't handle speed (think of the elders and newbies for one..), which makes them slow, which means for those wanting to go faster, there's an additional servere safety concern. Which sux balls.

All in all, I propse the gov build a seperate high-speed road for bikers and keep the rest off our special roads. If they want to drive cages and be stuck in traffic, then that's their choice.

Also, on the note of closing speeds - image a couple of bikers heading toward each other at 200 - 250kph? Realistic speed, which makes a closing speed of 4-500kph!!!!!! :shit:

yeah, spot how many spelling errors there are.... I need coffee

[MSTRS]

its more of a poke :Pokey: at a few KBers like biff baff, WINJA, and MSTRS....oooppps thats you :kick: :devil2:
Sad bastard. How's the NIftyFifty? :Pokey: right back at ya

[Hitcher]

Thanks for posting this link. It's good to know there are people prepared to stand up and fight the forces of Evil and Darkness. We live in a democracy. We should lend our support to these folk in an effort to see reason prevail.

Otherwise we will all be eating tofu, calling each other "comrade" while watching an All Black team selected so that it doesn't discriminate against minority groups on our State-controlled television network, with English sub-titles.

[**R1**]

Thanks for posting this link. It's good to know there are people prepared to stand up and fight the forces of Evil and Darkness. We live in a democracy. We should lend our support to these folk in an effort to see reason prevail.

Otherwise we will all be eating tofu, calling each other "comrade" while watching an All Black team selected so that it doesn't discriminate against minority groups on our State-controlled television network, with English sub-titles.
i agree.......my old lady works for that twat Clayton Cosgrove, so i fwded her the link to pass on to him...never know he might take it further

[Biff]

its more of a poke :Pokey: at a few KBers like biff baff, WINJA, and MSTRS....oooppps thats you :kick: :devil2:

Interesting that you haven't got Kwaka's on there... fwitened of em eh mate? :whistle:

[**R1**]

Interesting that you haven't got Kwaka's on there... fwitened of em eh mate? :whistle:
na i respect kwaka's i used to have the old zxr750....as for all the other brands like Ducati, harley, etc it kinda goes without saying if ya get what i mean :devil2:

[bluninja]

A really good read...especially the bit from 30 years ago, that suggested improving the road surface has more effect on reducing accidents at accident blackspots than altering speed limits. I guess that's why in the UK they have shellac (the grippy stuff) at pedestrian crossings and dosgy junctions. Great for stoppies too :)

[Blakamin]

something that's pissed me off for a long time is people sat in the middle/right hand lane. In the UK where I learnt to drive, you get a good bollockin for doing that.
a mate in Oz used to do that... I told him "oneday yer gunna get busted" and the next day he did :first:
failure to keep left... thats why the signs say "keep left unless passing" on freeways over there!

[bugjuice]

they have shellac (the grippy stuff) at pedestrian crossings and dosgy junctions. Great for stoppies too :)
they have it here too (just started to make more of an apperance), but I don't think they put it there for us to do stoppies on - imagine poor granny as she crosses, seeing a bike end up coming at her :gob: :crazy: :blink: :thud:

they've put some on the long left sweeper from Waterview onto the NW motorway. Knee-down material there.. :headbang:

[bugjuice]

a mate in Oz used to do that... I told him "oneday yer gunna get busted" and the next day he did :first:
failure to keep left... thats why the signs say "keep left unless passing" on freeways over there!
yeah, they have those signs, but only out in the sticks on the 1k passing strips.. they seem to think that's only where it applies, and the freeways don't matter.. w*kas

[Lou Girardin]

Good old Alan Wilkinson, another of the "vocal minority".
Long may he stick it to 'em.

[MacD]

It's about time some of the people involved in the LTSA/LTNZ took this course (http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/ugrad_info?info=stage1) offered by the University of Auckland:


STATS 150, "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics", is a new course about the uses, limitations, and abuses of statistical investigation and statistical information. It is concerned with the critical examination of the data-based arguments that pervade the media and public policy debate rather than hands-on data analysis.

Their misuse of statistics would make an Advertising Executive blush!

[bluninja]

Their misuse of statistics would make an Advertising Executive blush!

Only cos they never thought of them first...or didn't get the account :yes:

[Zapf]

It's about time some of the people involved in the LTSA/LTNZ took this course (http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/ugrad_info?info=stage1) offered by the University of Auckland:


STATS 150, "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics", is a new course about the uses, limitations, and abuses of statistical investigation and statistical information. It is concerned with the critical examination of the data-based arguments that pervade the media and public policy debate rather than hands-on data analysis.

Their misuse of statistics would make an Advertising Executive blush!

only if someone can hold them accountable.... ermmm can it be considered as Fraud to mislead the public?

[loosebruce]

Quite a good read, they bring up some bloody good points too.
Reminded me of an article i read in a C@# Magazine bout a cop in Q'land on the accidents around the Pacific Coast Highway, word has it it used to be a tight twisty up a mountian dow a mountain kinda of journey at times, now it has been replaced with a 3 lane highway (sumthang like that) and he stated how there were more crashes now than ever (more fatal too) not so much due to the high speeds but more so lack of concerntration, lets face it a boring long straight road it's pretty easy to fall off your game, but in refernce to the twisty old highway people would be more alert/switched on to driving with less crashes resluting.
Made sense to me when i thought about it, even though i'd say my attention levels would be higher when riding a bike to say driving a car. If i can find the article i'll post it. i've got a wee bit of spare time to look around. (funny that)

[Indo]

He does have some points but its pretty easy to see that hes just as slanted as the LTSA he rips into. And when he then rips into the Police for arresting the partner of a burglar on totally legitimate grounds its pretty obvious what his agenda is.

Bit of a shame this guy couldn't put his energies into something a little bit more productive than spending his life bleating because he can't exceed the speed limit by more than 10kmh.

It is funny when he acts like some crusader backed by the majority of the Public ready to rebel against this 'evil' regime. I wonder if he read that recent survey in the herald that found that around 3/4 of the public actually support speed cameras (let alone cops enforcing the limit).

[Krayy]

...The other thing is the current technology of vehicles too. I've heard an intersting debate, which will go on for ever and ever. I ride a fairly newly designed bike (yeah, ok, it's been superseeded already) which has been tested to some incredable speeds of which mine, and many more bikes and cages are able to handle. In fact, it could be fair to argue that they're safer and more stable at higher speeds, so if vehicles are safer, faster and more reliable, then why aren't the speed limits reflected in this?...
Maybe they could introduce a speed limit sticker to put on cars like they do on buses in Europe where the age and crash test results give a maximum top speed. I sure as hell don't want some fecker with leaf spring suspension and drum brakes all round hounding me through some twisties (when I'm in the family cage of course) at 110+. Woulda helped the guy in the 180B near Taupo the other day if he was limited to 90.

Q. Did you hear about the weather down there that day???
A. It was raining Datsun cogs :laugh:

[bugjuice]

Maybe they could introduce a speed limit sticker to put on cars like they do on buses in Europe where the age and crash test results give a maximum top speed. I sure as hell don't want some fecker with leaf spring suspension and drum brakes all round hounding me through some twisties (when I'm in the family cage of course) at 110+. Woulda helped the guy in the 180B near Taupo the other day if he was limited to 90.

Q. Did you hear about the weather down there that day???
A. It was raining Datsun cogs :laugh:
good idea, but a few flaws - given that everyone can have their own speed limits dependant on age and crash test results etc, that's going to make a very real problem of granny driving her '65 Triumph at 70kph while the rest of us 'younger ones' on new machines get to do 150kph (exageration, i know). That's still a risk of going 'legally' faster than everyone else.. I know you mention that it's done in Euroland, but can't see how it works.. I guess I'll have to search the web on this one..
Plus, when have you seen a boy racer in a leaf srung-drum ridden Datsun ever obey the speed limit? The 100kph sign isn't going to stop them trying to keep up on the twisties. Stupid cage drivers should drive to their and the cars ability, else they will overcook it, and it'll be raining Datsun cogs (v funny btw..)

[MSTRS]

recent survey in the herald that found that around 3/4 of the public actually support speed cameras (let alone cops enforcing the limit).
Not seen, but polls are like stats. Bullshit. Was poll conducted in an old folk's home for instance. Or were the questions worded in such a way as to be answerable the way the pollsters wanted the poll to reflect.

[MacD]

I wonder if he read that recent survey in the herald that found that around 3/4 of the public actually support speed cameras (let alone cops enforcing the limit).

It is fairly easy to write a survey question to provide the answer that you want. For example the question could have been: "Do you support the policing of speed limits through the use of technology such as speed cameras?" If you look carefully this is actually two questions. Do you support the policing of speed limits? Do you support the use of speed cameras? Even if you are not supportive of speed cameras you are likely to answer yes to the original question.

[bugjuice]

85% of stats are made up on the spot. Everyone knows that.. I did a survey earlier on it..
The other thing I was thinking of with that, is if someone came to you and asked you that, would you say that you didn't want policing and/or speed cameras? Kinda makes us look irresponsible, and we can get a bad rep at the best of times..

[Blakamin]

If everyone actually did 100 I'd be happy.... sick of people doin friggin 70-80 where 100 is legal... sick of people slowing down to 80 to go around a bend in the friggin road thats marked at 95... sick of people doin 80 the second a passing lane finishes (hi mr bmw... you didnt like me knocking on your window when you stopped to tell you the limit wasn't 80, did you)
making different speed limits just makes more angry drivers... I dont wanna get stuck behing nana coz someone said she could do 70 in a 100 zone.. and I dont want some prick doin 150 overtaking me when I'm in a cage with my daughter either... make it 100-110 and make sure people actually do it!!!

[Indo]

It is fairly easy to write a survey question to provide the answer that you want

It could have been but given that the Herald is hardly pro-police and the survey was undertaken by them in reponse to a LTSA survey which people claimed was biases i doubt very much that this would be the case.

Either way with a result of that margin regardless of the questions asked it does make a mockery of Wilkinsons claim that the general public are behind him.

He makes some other interesting claims also, that the people who want to go slower are typically 'less educated, poorer' whereas those who want to go faster are 'more educated and affulent'.

[bugjuice]

people who want to go slower are typically 'less educated, poorer' whereas those who want to go faster are 'more educated and affulent'.
interesting statement. In some ways, it kinda makes sense, in that those who can afford will push it, cos if they fuk up, they can afford to repair what damage they do, where as obviously if you don't have that sort of cash, you tend to not have such expensive fast machinery and can't afford to repair fukups.
But, that is quite a big generalisation to make.. I have no money, yet can't find the brakes..
I don't generally agree with that, but if this is the case, then I can see a point.. just not a very good one

[Hitcher]

those who want to go faster are 'more educated and affulent'.
Them durned affulents and their flithy gargres...

[MacD]

Either way with a result of that margin regardless of the questions asked it does make a mockery of Wilkinsons claim that the general public are behind him.


People also tend to give the "socially-acceptable" answer to these type of questions. I suspect that if the Herald had asked the same people if they "speed" when driving, 3/4 of respondents would have said no.

By the way I have no particular problem with speed limits and their enforcement, but I do have a problem with some of the arguments used by the LTSA.

It would be much more honest to say that the speed limit is set at 100 kmh because it is set at 100 kmh. I drove for many years with the open road speed limit set at 80, yet it was changed overnight. Did the "killers" doing 90 kmh suddenly become safe drivers overnight as well?

[Hitcher]

Did the "killers" doing 90 kmh suddenly become safe drivers overnight as well?
Yes, yes they did.

[Alan Wilkinson]

Thanks for all the interest in the FastAndSafe website. A few fact points:

a) The surveys were by LTSA. They and the police spend $30M annually to manipulate public opinion and then survey to make sure they keep getting funding, i.e. prove success.

b) The identification of different categories of road users and their speed preferences was by a Uni of Texas group under Prof Kara Kockelmann. She has a website that publishes all their papers - lots of interesting, competent (and unbiassed) stuff.

c) I have never claimed to have the public behind me. I aim to discover and publish the truth irrespective of what anyone thinks.

d) Motor cyclists should be very concerned about the ACC injury statistics - they are what is costing you a fortune in registration fees.

Regards
Alan Wilkinson (www.fastandsafe.org)

[Indo]

Thanks for all the interest in the FastAndSafe website. A few fact points:

a) The surveys were by LTSA. They and the police spend $30M annually to manipulate public opinion and then survey to make sure they keep getting funding, i.e. prove success.

....A Herald-DigiPoll survey, not in the least connected to the LTSA (unless they are part of this evil conspiracy as well ?)


c) I have never claimed to have the public behind me. I aim to discover and publish the truth irrespective of what anyone thinks.

".....We, the public, are sick of all this official deceit. We want our road transport to be faster, safer, cheaper and more flexible."

"f this Government doesn’t recognise this and act, it is likely to be shot and buried itself at the next election."

[Alan Wilkinson]

You are right, the Herald did do its own poll as well:

03.01.05
By MATHEW DEARNALEY


Most people support the use of police cameras - concealed or otherwise - to nab speeding drivers, despite a high degree of cynicism about their true purpose.

A Herald-DigiPoll survey of 1000 people aged 18 or over found 72.7 per cent thought it was fair to use them to crack down on speed.

Yet a little over half, 50.3 per cent, believed the main purpose was to line Government coffers.

Just 46 per cent thought speed cameras were used primarily to cut the death toll on the roads.

The survey, with a 3.1 per cent margin of error, suggested cameras would enjoy public support even if the Government withdrew an instruction for the police not to conceal them.

It found even stronger backing for hidden cameras - from 59.1 per cent of those surveyed - than cited in often-criticised research by Land Transport New Zealand.

That agency's latest annual survey of attitudes to road safety found 56 per cent of 1640 people supported hidden cameras, a result that many letters to newspapers claimed was due to self-serving questions.

Land Transport's survey showed 28 per cent opposed to hidden cameras, and 16 per cent neutral.

The Herald's survey showed 40 per cent opposed the idea and just 0.9 per cent were undecided.


Your second point is taken from a response to a George Hawkins article:


There is no apology to be made for focusing on speeding drivers. - Hawkins

We, the public, are sick of all this official deceit. We want our road transport to be faster, safer, cheaper and more flexible.

The LTSA is an incompetent, out of control monster that is a hindrance to all of these needs. It should be shot and buried.

If this Government doesn’t recognise this and act, it is likely to be shot and buried itself at the next election.
- FastAndSafe

On that comment, I think we were proved right. The government has since abolished the LTSA and split its functions between MOT and a new operational agency, LTNZ.

See also the severely critical parliamentary report released yesterday:

www.fastandsafe.org/site.aspx/Pages/Media/PatrolsIgnore111Calls4Feb05

[MacD]

Yes, yes they did.

Thank you for clarifying that for me!

Of course the real question is which poses the greater risk, travelling 10kmh over the speed limit or 10 kmh under? In the first situation the driver is likely to be the passer, whereas in the second they are likely to be the passee?

(Are those real words?)

[Hitcher]

(Are those real words?)
Yes and no.

[Lou Girardin]

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

[spudchucka]

I aim to discover and publish the truth irrespective of what anyone thinks.
So long as the truth according to you and Lou pushes your own agenda. Your mentality is no better than the LTSA & police hierachy that you actively criticise.

[Alan Wilkinson]

Do you have any factual point to make, spudchucka?

[spudchucka]

Do you have any factual point to make, spudchucka?
Why would that be of interest to you, facts I mean?

[Waylander]

This is gonna be fun *sits back and watches with his bag of popcorn*:headbang:

[Alan Wilkinson]

Two reasons. First, it will indicate what your opinions are worth. Second, it might save me the usual minimum 30 day wait to obtain facts from government agencies. (If, as Lou implies, you have internal access to them.)

On the latter track, it would be very helpful if you could explain in detail how policy on the rigid enforcement of speed limits is developed and transmitted to individual police officers.

[Paul in NZ]

Do you have any factual point to make, spudchucka?

Dude.... We all need to be a little careful of FACTs spouted by enthusiasts, zealots and salesmen. Brian Tamaki preaches facts (according to him). Do we believe him?

I seem to remember a poll the govt did re spped cameras. The question was cunningly worded something like.

"Would you support the use of speed cameras to reduce the road toll."

Obvious answer of course is YES! What sane person would NOT want to reduce the road toll?

But of course the poll question actually presumes that speed cameras DO reduce the road toll. Thats debateable and really, there is no way to properly answer that question with a yes or no..

Personally I think ya need to take a chill pill. The flavour of the week is writing tickets. That is showing some signs of relaxing a little. Everything is just for a season and personally I don't mind if we are all just travelling a little slower... Then again, I own an old Guzzi so wtf would I know...

Paul N

[Alan Wilkinson]

Paul, of course we have to be careful of facts. That is precisely my business and my concern, as a scientist, a statistician and as a computer software engineer.

But you seem to be saying we can ignore facts because they are all dubious. That is nonsense, and propagates nonsense.

Regarding speed cameras, a well-designed experiment would be able to determine their impacts - good and bad. Unfortunately good design was not amongst LTSA's capabilities. However, they did attempt a trial of hidden speed cameras in Waikato. The Minister terminated it as a failure. Two years later LTSA tried to resurrect the results as a success. Their analysis was completely incompetent or fraudulent - impossible to distinguish which. It is all exposed here:

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

The principal outcome was that the trial suggested rigid enforcement of speed limits has no impact on fatalities and an adverse impact on injuries. This has been thoroughly verified by the subsequent introduction of the highway patrol and the zero tolerance policy on speed limit enforcement.

[speedpro]

This is one of those times where personals really need to be kept out of the discussion and only the facts presented, preferably with supporting evidence.

[manuboy]

What i like about the Fast&Safe site, is that regardless of motivation, agenda or outcome, it's a about a guy getting off his arse and spending some time and energy on something he believes in. Which is a far cry from 6 pages of frustration vented here about the latest speeding ticket.

Personally, i could care less about the LTSA / Government / Police policies in regards to enforcing road safety in terms of speeding motorists, because i travel at whatever speed takes my fancy and seems safe to me at the time (judgement call). I suspect that that approach is quite common. Or not.

The only thing i've changed since remounting my steed a couple of months back was to accept responsibility for that. Thankfully so far that hasn't involved wondering if i was travelling a little slower, could i have avoided that vehicle and it's inhabitants.

It has involved not mentioning any tickets i've picked up lately, because you can't be sore at breaking the law while you 100% knew you were doing it, regardless of how shitty the circumstances were....

[Paul in NZ]

Paul, of course we have to be careful of facts. That is precisely my business and my concern, as a scientist, a statistician and as a computer software engineer.

But you seem to be saying we can ignore facts because they are all dubious. That is nonsense, and propagates nonsense.

Regarding speed cameras, a well-designed experiment would be able to determine their impacts - good and bad. Unfortunately good design was not amongst LTSA's capabilities. However, they did attempt a trial of hidden speed cameras in Waikato. The Minister terminated it as a failure. Two years later LTSA tried to resurrect the results as a success. Their analysis was completely incompetent or fraudulent - impossible to distinguish which. It is all exposed here:

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

The principal outcome was that the trial suggested rigid enforcement of speed limits has no impact on fatalities and an adverse impact on injuries. This has been thoroughly verified by the subsequent introduction of the highway patrol and the zero tolerance policy on speed limit enforcement.

Dude... I agree with you but I also don't want to go back to the days when 120kph was the minimum speed on the wellington northern motorway. The driving during rush hour is a lot calmer these days (as observed from my little starlet).

There has to be a sane compromise?

Paul N

[FlyingDutchMan]

WTF is up with graph: (and the others like it!)
http://www.fastandsafe.org/sharedfiles/fastandsafe/images/charts/NZ_50kph_AvgSpeed_Casualties.gif

Why the log scale for deaths? Is this to flatten out the actual numbers and make it look like its not going down? Thats a 50% decrease (if not more) in deaths in 13 years! I can't tell exactly because you are not displaying the information in a useful manner (well maybe useful from your point of view, but its not very clear).



The normal exponential growth equation is y = exp(ax) where a is a constant, x is the time variable and y is the population measure. (e is approx 2.718) This equation applies in situations where the increase in population is proportional to the size of the population, for example where a population has a net increase of 2% per year. (In that case a = 0.02 for x measured in years.)

The natural logarithm is defined to be: ln(y) = ln(exp(ax)) = ax. This means that if we plot ln(y) against x we get a straight line of slope = a. This is the reason for using logarithmic scales in these charts. On a normal flat scale we would be observing changes in curved lines - much harder to identify and measure.


Translation: I've used a log scale to hide the actual decrease in the deaths and injuries over the last 13 years.

As a statistition you should be showing the information in a non-biased view. You are actually worse than the LTSA for trying to deliberatly trying to mis-lead people. Everyone knows the LTSA does it, but you claim to be the voice of reason while trying to pull bullshit like that.

Got the graphs and quotes from: http://www.fastandsafe.org/site.aspx/Pages/Facts/InjuryTrends/charts

[SPman]

I think the intent is to show the upwards trend in deaths and injuries since 2000, despite the intensive crack down on speed, in contrast to the national downwards trend displayed in the preceding 10 yrs.

[Alan Wilkinson]

The log scale is to show a constant long term trend as a straight line rather than as a curve. This is so it is easy to spot changes in the trend - you can't easily see how an exponential curve is changing but you can see how a straight line changes.

Roads have been getting safer and crash numbers have been reducing world-wide for many decades around the world. That's why you can't just compare numbers from one year to the next to find the impact of a change. You have to look for the change against the long term trend line.

The charts show that there was a very constant long term trend (ie a straight line sloping downwards) from about 1993 to the end of 2000. Then the highway patrol was introduced with rigid enforcement of speed limits, and it all turned to custard.

I believe the long term trend downward is mostly due to incremental road and vehicle engineering improvements. Demographics and congestion may also play a part.

[Alan Wilkinson]

I should have added that it also totally disproves the LTSA claim that crash rates are exponentially dependent on average speeds.

[Alan Wilkinson]

Dude... I agree with you but I also don't want to go back to the days when 120kph was the minimum speed on the wellington northern motorway. The driving during rush hour is a lot calmer these days (as observed from my little starlet).

There has to be a sane compromise?

Paul N

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

For a start, SH1 should be at least a 4 lane divided highway throughout the North Island. Secondly, the driving test should ensure drivers are capable of passing and allowing others to pass on our other 2 lane main roads.

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

[SPman]

I would like to see bias, prejudice, political advantage, point scoring and all other manner of bullshit taken out of the whole road safety scenario.
Clear, accurate data, and solutions from people and organisations with no barrow to push, that takes into account the real world and an overview of how transport and society are intertwined, from proper data that is comprehensively collected, analysed and interpreted.

:angry:

Hah!
Fat chance!
Is that a porker I see flying past my window?

:shutup::shutup:

Oh fuck it, I'll just go back to ignoring the entire road regulation scenario and riding as best as I see fit, in the manner that has kept me and others alive, unharmed and happy the last 40 yrs!

:shake::shake::shake:

[Paul in NZ]

For a start, SH1 should be at least a 4 lane divided highway throughout the North Island.

Bollox

It should be 4 lanes all the way to Dunedin and 6 lanes in the north

I agree
SPman

[2_SL0]

That is a excellent site. Congrats.

[spudchucka]

Two reasons. First, it will indicate what your opinions are worth.I was just giving you the traditional wind up that people always seem to get in this place. If you want an indication of what my posts are worth then do a search and read all 1447 of them, opps 1448 now.


Second, it might save me the usual minimum 30 day wait to obtain facts from government agencies. (If, as Lou implies, you have internal access to them.)I don't see why I should be supplying you with a short cut around the ugly streets of bureaucracy.


On the latter track, it would be very helpful if you could explain in detail how policy on the rigid enforcement of speed limits is developedOld Lou seems to think that I'm a cop in the position of policy making but I'm not, I'm just a dumb constable so how policy is developed isn't something I have anything to do with.


and transmitted to individual police officers.Cops have bosses who like to tell them what to do. Don't we all? Well most of us at least.

BTW I haven't had time to have a proper read of your web site as yet. I'm sure there are many relevant points on there and I'll be interested to see what "facts" you are promoting.

[spudchucka]

The charts show that there was a very constant long term trend (ie a straight line sloping downwards) from about 1993 to the end of 2000. Then the highway patrol was introduced with rigid enforcement of speed limits, and it all turned to custard.
So are you implying that rigid targeted enforcement contributes to higher crash rates? Or are you just cashing in on the fact that the road toll spiked from 404 in 2002 to 461 in 2003. Ignoring the fact that in 2000 when the Higway Patrol was introduced the toll was 462 and that in 2004 the toll was 435.

It seems that the road toll has stayed fairly constant so far this centuary and hasn't actually turned to custard as you imply. Perhaps the actual "fact" is that the road toll has simply reached a plateau and is now at a level that only individual drivers can possibly make a difference to.

[Alan Wilkinson]

So what are you told to do regarding speed limit enforcement, and who gives the orders?

[Alan Wilkinson]

So are you implying that rigid targeted enforcement contributes to higher crash rates? Or are you just cashing in on the fact that the road toll spiked from 404 in 2002 to 461 in 2003. Ignoring the fact that in 2000 when the Higway Patrol was introduced the toll was 462 and that in 2004 the toll was 435.

It seems that the road toll has stayed fairly constant so far this centuary and hasn't actually turned to custard as you imply. Perhaps the actual "fact" is that the road toll has simply reached a plateau and is now at a level that only individual drivers can possibly make a difference to.

Take a look at these charts:
www.fastandsafe.org/site.aspx/Pages/Facts/RigidEnforcement/charts

Fatalities have not been affected (for better or worse) by the hundreds of thousands of speeding tickets issued from 2001 on. But injuries are far worse. The policy has been just a disastrous failure. What police district are you in?

[Paul in NZ]

Guys!

This is an open public forum for New Zealand motorcyclists. Alan, with the greatest respect, you don't seem to be one of those while Spud does. You have your own website which is very interesting and doubtless give pause to a great deal of thought.

Having said that, I think it is bloody unfair to start asking these sorts of questions of an ordinary copper in such a public forum. He can't really win can he? He has a job to do and has limited scope to discuss and act.

Your opinions ARE valued and are definately insightful but this is taking a bit of a funny turn methinks and I belive people better bugger off to their respective corners before this gets really tedious.

Just my opinion.... But I know what would happen if I divulged the inner operations of my place of work in such a public forum! Apart from getting the sack I'd be arrested for murder for boring people to death!

Paul N

[spudchucka]

So what are you told to do regarding speed limit enforcement, and who gives the orders?
We get a DPR, (directed patrol report) that indicates what areas are to be targeted over your next shift rotation period. We get allocated "hours" of various types of traffic duties, drink driving, restraints, general traffic behaviour and speed are the usual suspects. We also get given targets relating to criminal suspects that are believed to be active at the time.

At the end of the shift period you return the DPR with how many traffic hours, arrests, bail checks, hotel visits, firearms surrendered etc etc you have done over that period.

Its not an order, its a direction that indicates where you as a constable should be concentrating your efforts. The reasoning behind the DPR is usualy the responsibility of the local Intel Section, who collates information relating to criminal activity, suspects movements, problem areas, problem times, traffic crash black spots, areas that are generating a lot of traffic complaints etc etc etc.

If I don't achieve the allocated traffic hours then its just stiff shit for the bosses as far as I'm concerned. I don't give a rats arse about trying to achieve traffic hours and ticketing every poor sod that breaks the speed limit by 11kph. If I find traffic offences while I'm patroling that I consider worthy of targeting then I'll deal with it, otherwise its usually a flash of the lights or a friendly reminder over the PA. But then I don't work in the traffic section of police and I can account for my time in other areas of police work, which HP cops can't do.

[Alan Wilkinson]

Well, Paul, I think it is a bit of a funny turn that a few polite questions can be so much more threatening than a bunch of insults.

And if you think it's boring, you don't have to read it.

But we might even find out if the police really do have ticket quotas and if so where they come from. Or whether they have the integrity to oppose policies that fail to do anything useful, cause a number of people to lose their livelihoods unjustly and cause many decent people to be treated like criminals in their own country?

And I think the topic is relevant to motorcyclists. I didn't start it.

[Waylander]

But if you joined this site for the sole purpose of advertising your site or trying to gain information that you probably should be privalaged to then whats the point? You're not gonna be helping us by getting one of our number fired.

[spudchucka]

Take a look at these charts:
www.fastandsafe.org/site.aspx/Pages/Facts/RigidEnforcement/charts

Fatalities have not been affected (for better or worse) by the hundreds of thousands of speeding tickets issued from 2001 on. But injuries are far worse. The policy has been just a disastrous failure. What police district are you in?
Could it not equally be a response to the publics willingness to kill and injure themselves in traffic crashes and subsequently police ruthlessly target driving behaviour because the general driving public are just too thick to keep themselves on the correct side of the road?

Perhaps the policy is a failure, I don't really care, but as long as people keep wiping themselves and others away on the road the policy isn't about to change anytime soon.

Your charts are too full of little dots and lines, do you have your data on a spread sheet?

I'm in central district.

[Alan Wilkinson]

Thanks Spudchucka. I've been told all instructions to police on traffic enforcement originate at the district level, rather than from police headquarters. I found that a bit hard to believe, but maybe you can confirm that?

That makes me wonder how national policies could be directed.

[speedpro]

And I think the topic is relevant to motorcyclists. I didn't start it.
That would be me, and going by the 574 views in a day and a half it seems to be of some interest to this motorcycling community. I think we all have essentially the same view of the LTSA/Govt policies regarding speed and enforcement on our roads. I personally find Alan's interpretations more honest, and I'm not alone.

[Alan Wilkinson]

Your charts are too full of little dots and lines, do you have your data on a spread sheet?


Yes, it's all available on the website. Click on the "data" menu item on the left of the chart page.

[Alan Wilkinson]

In the Central police district, police are now issuing 6500 speed tickets per month instead of 3000 and there are now 100 traffic injuries a month whereas if the trend prior to rigid speed limit enforcement had continued there would have been about 50.

Are you happy about working for an organisation like that?

[speedpro]

Are you happy about working for an organisation like that?

That sort of question doesn't really help the "debate". The company I used to work for I used to have a few problems with some of the directions I was given. It never really did any harm to anyone but I would have preferred to have been completely up-front and honest. The only thing I was a bit unhappy about with the company was the commute each day. 26km on AK motorways each day.

[spudchucka]

But we might even find out if the police really do have ticket quotas and if so where they come from. Or whether they have the integrity to oppose policies that fail to do anything useful, cause a number of people to lose their livelihoods unjustly and cause many decent people to be treated like criminals in their own country?
If you are still stuck in the whole "do the police have a quota" question then your credibility will take a nose dive I'm afraid.

I'll explain it again, hopefully for the last time ever on this web site.

Police receive funding from various agencies to deliver directed traffic enforcement. ACC funds the booze busses for instance.

In return for these funds the police are expected to deliver X amount of hours of the specific traffic enforcement agreed upon by the parties involved.

If they don't deliver the hours then the funding will dry up for the next year and the police will have to lose staff.

The police then allocate traffic enforcement hours to their troops on the street. When a cop on the street records time spent on traffic enforcement they are expected to achieve X amount of "contacts" per hour of traffic enforcement delivered. The amount of contacts per hour can vary between districts but it is usually 1 - 2 contacts per hour. A contact can be an Infringement Offence Notice or ION, (speeding tickets etc), a Traffic Offence Notice or TON, (dangerous driving, alcohol offences etc) a verbal warning or assisting a motorist to name only the most common ones.

Cops ticket rates in relation to hours delivered against contacts achieved are part of their annual performance appraisals. If they don't achieve the 1 - 2 contacts per hour then they may get an adverse performance appraisal.

If I locate a driver commiting an offence then I write them a ticket and record the appropriate traffic hours delivered. If I don't locate any driver commiting an offence worthy of receiving a ticket then I don't record any traffic hours. I'm usually looking for traffic offences between general duties jobs anyway and don't have a lot of time with nothing to do other than traffic work. I don't record verbal warnings as contacts because too many warnings can indicate that you are unwilling to issue tickets and if you don't want to ever write tickets then as a cop you are probably in the wrong job.


cause a number of people to lose their livelihoods unjustly and cause many decent people to be treated like criminals in their own country?Thats just utter crap. If they took some responsibility for their own actions they wouldn't find themselves in that position in the first place. If they weren't deciding for themselves when and where particular laws applied to them they wouldn't put themselves in that position.

[spudchucka]

In the Central police district, police are now issuing 6500 speed tickets per month instead of 3000Well you can blame me for about 8 - 10 per month.


and there are now 100 traffic injuries a month whereas if the trend prior to rigid speed limit enforcement had continued there would have been about 50.You're simply playing the stats game, which by the way folks like yourself and Lou Girardin are constantly criticising the LTSA and police for doing exactly the same thing.

If your trend was to continue, how long would it take before injuries per month reached zero? Do you think that would have been achievable under the previous regime? If not, why not?


Are you happy about working for an organisation like that?If you are going to ask me questions like that you can get stuffed, see ya later.

[Paul in NZ]

Well, Paul, I think it is a bit of a funny turn that a few polite questions can be so much more threatening than a bunch of insults.

And if you think it's boring, you don't have to read it.

But we might even find out if the police really do have ticket quotas and if so where they come from. Or whether they have the integrity to oppose policies that fail to do anything useful, cause a number of people to lose their livelihoods unjustly and cause many decent people to be treated like criminals in their own country?

And I think the topic is relevant to motorcyclists. I didn't start it.

What I object to is your lecturing and beligerant tone Alan. I dear say you are a really clever guy and know a lot about this but I don't think you should be hassling members of this forum because of their vocation or calling their individual integrety into question. It's the first sign of a zealot with a flawed argument.

Believe it or not, this country is still a democracy. If your views can attract enough support and you are charming enough you can change the way things are done but I doubt you will accomplish much here by causing friction. I'd practise your deplomacy as well as your statistics because your are starting to sound like someone that got a ticket that he didn't like.

I didn't say it was boring, I said I would bore people with the story.

Lighten up.

Paul N

ps - go learn to ride a bike and chill out.

[Alan Wilkinson]

You're simply playing the stats game, which by the way folks like yourself and Lou Girardin are constantly criticising the LTSA and police for doing exactly the same thing.

If your trend was to continue, how long would it take before injuries per month reached zero? Do you think that would have been achievable under the previous regime? If not, why not?


If we looked at the trend over a longer period we would need to use the log format because it would show as an exponential curve and approach zero but never reach it. So yes, there will be a small expected curve over the four years I extrapolated and 50 is probably a little too low. But the basic argument doesn't change.

Stats is not a game. It is a way of finding out whether what you are doing is working or not.

[Alan Wilkinson]

That sort of question doesn't really help the "debate". The company I used to work for I used to have a few problems with some of the directions I was given. It never really did any harm to anyone but I would have preferred to have been completely up-front and honest. The only thing I was a bit unhappy about with the company was the commute each day. 26km on AK motorways each day.

I think it's an important question. If you are not happy with the ethics and achievements of your company/organisation then if you can't do anything about it you should leave.

[Alan Wilkinson]

What I object to is your lecturing and beligerant tone Alan. I dear say you are a really clever guy and know a lot about this but I don't think you should be hassling members of this forum because of their vocation or calling their individual integrety into question. It's the first sign of a zealot with a flawed argument.

ps - go learn to ride a bike and chill out.

I don't think I hassled anyone. Spud (and others) needled me but I simply asked questions I am interested in the answers to.

ps - had a bike when I was younger, now enjoy a good car.

[Alan Wilkinson]

If you are still stuck in the whole "do the police have a quota" question then your credibility will take a nose dive I'm afraid.

... I don't record verbal warnings as contacts because too many warnings can indicate that you are unwilling to issue tickets and if you don't want to ever write tickets then as a cop you are probably in the wrong job.

... If they took some responsibility for their own actions they wouldn't find themselves in that position in the first place. If they weren't deciding for themselves when and where particular laws applied to them they wouldn't put themselves in that position.

What I am interested in is how the police implement changes in enforcement policy as it seems to be a tickly subject with Police HQ. It may be related to some legal issues around a police officer acting with independent discretion to enforce the law. But they seem to be very coy about the matter.

I disagree with you re deciding for themselves when the laws applied to them. The police changed their tolerance levels, the public didn't change theirs. That's why so many tickets are being issued. And breaking bad laws en masse is often the only recourse of joe citizen. Especially if you are in the minority of the population. And the way the demerit points system works, the minority who drive the most are penalised the most severely for accumulated small mistakes over a long period.

[Biff]

I've taken a look at the charts on your site Alan and I've also taken a look at the official government statistics. I conclude that both of your figures have fundamental flaws in them. This is because the statistics reported by both yourself and the government appear to fail to consider the annual increase in road traffic, a figure that I believe runs at around 7% per annum. Therefore by my calculations the number of accidents has actually fallen in real terms, because neither yours nor the governments appear to include the annual % rise in the number of motor vehicles on the road.

In order to accurately quantity any accurate statistics it is absolutely imperative that the figures presented must be taken in the context of total traffic volume.

I broadly welcome some of what your organisation is doing and there's some useful information on your site, but you've tarnished my view by posting blatant anti police stories. I mean what on earth is that crap story titled "Thuggery in Police Uniform" all about? She deserved everything she got and the officers acted within the confines of the law. She broke the law, yet they showed her some compassion. To label the cops that were there as thugs is simply a ploy to build resentment against police officers in general.

Keep it sweet and you'll gain far more credibility. Negative campaigning only works for US politicians.

Now for a dance... :wari:

[spudchucka]

If we looked at the trend over a longer period we would need to use the log format because it would show as an exponential curve and approach zero but never reach it. So yes, there will be a small expected curve over the four years I extrapolated and 50 is probably a little too low. But the basic argument doesn't change.However common sense would tell any reasonable person that its just a theory that in practice would also be proven flawed.


Stats is not a game. It is a way of finding out whether what you are doing is working or not.I find it interesting that anti police campaigners treat stats with utter contempt when quoted by police or LTSA sources, yet when stats are used to promote anti police / LTSA causes then the stats amount to undeniable proof.

Its a game and a bloody silly one at that.

[spudchucka]

What I am interested in is how the police implement changes in enforcement policy as it seems to be a tickly subject with Police HQ.You won't get the answers from me, as I said before I'm just a constable, the only policy I'm going to change is when to take my meal break.


It may be related to some legal issues around a police officer acting with independent discretion to enforce the law. But they seem to be very coy about the matter.That sounds very much like your opinion is based largely on assumptions and very little facts. Cops have discretion and the freedom to use it as they see fit, however the checks and ballances are in place to make sure it isn't abused.


I disagree with you re deciding for themselves when the laws applied to them. The police changed their tolerance levels, the public didn't change theirs.Its not the publics right to decide what the police tolerance levels will be. Public opinion should of course be listened to but the police must be able to operate independantly of direct influence from the Govt or the public. An individual deciding what speed tolerances apply to them stinks of arogance and a lack of tolerance for other road users.


And the way the demerit points system works, the minority who drive the most are penalised the most severely for accumulated small mistakes over a long period.So what would you propose for demerit points? A formula based on how many kms a person drives in a year?

amount speed limit exceeded by / kms travel per year = appropriate demerit points on a pro rata basis.

I was a sales rep for 6 years and travelled 70,000km each year. In 6 years I received one speeding ticket. I was one of the minority you speak of and yet I was able to drive 70,000 kms per year without being excessively penalised for small mistakes. Spending more time on the roads no doubt increases your chances statistically of being involved in an accident, getting traffic tickets and suffering vehicle breakdowns. Wouldn't it make more sense for the minority who drive the most to simply take more care when they drive and thus reduce their chances of becoming a "victim". Your scenario is just another example of people refusing to take responsibility for their own actions.

[spudchucka]

This is because the statistics reported by both yourself and the government appear to fail to consider the annual increase in road traffic, a figure that I believe runs at around 7% per annum. Therefore by my calculations the number of accidents has actually fallen in real terms, because neither yours nor the governments appear to include the annual % rise in the number of motor vehicles on the road. I've attached a chart that clearly shows decreasing death, injury and hospitalisation rates alongside the increasing vehicle fleet. The source was the LTSA web site sometime last year.


I broadly welcome some of what your organisation is doing and there's some useful information on your site, but you've tarnished my view by posting blatant anti police stories.These stories are the ones that reveal the true intent of the persons responsible for the web site. Mr Wilkinson is just another wealthy police hater like Bob Jones.


simply a ploy to build resentment against police officers in general.Sums it up pretty well.

[Midnight 82]

Well you can blame me for about 8 - 10 per month.

You're simply playing the stats game, which by the way folks like yourself and Lou Girardin are constantly criticising the LTSA and police for doing exactly the same thing.

If your trend was to continue, how long would it take before injuries per month reached zero? Do you think that would have been achievable under the previous regime? If not, why not?

If you are going to ask me questions like that you can get stuffed, see ya later.

:niceone: Good on ya spudchucka. I feel you guys do a faily good job. Its only the people that get ticketed all the time that bitch about the force. You seem to be reasonably cool about most things. Well you have my vote :done:

[Alan Wilkinson]

I've taken a look at the charts on your site Alan and I've also taken a look at the official government statistics. I conclude that both of your figures have fundamental flaws in them. This is because the statistics reported by both yourself and the government appear to fail to consider the annual increase in road traffic, a figure that I believe runs at around 7% per annum. Therefore by my calculations the number of accidents has actually fallen in real terms, because neither yours nor the governments appear to include the annual % rise in the number of motor vehicles on the road.

In order to accurately quantity any accurate statistics it is absolutely imperative that the figures presented must be taken in the context of total traffic volume.


There are two separate factors to consider, and I have done my best to explain them in many ways on my site. The first is the worldwide falling long term trend. The second is what happened with the introduction of rigid speed limit enforcement.

The falling long term trend shows up on the charts for New Zealand both in the raw numbers and when you adjust them for vehicles/population or distance travelled. My point is simply when you allow for that trend then you see that speed enforcement has been an abject failure.

[Lou Girardin]

As expected replies to Alan Wilkinson have degenerated into abuse, as sure sign of a weak counter-argument.
Anyone who disagrees with the official line is a "Police - hater", exactly the response demonstrated in a book I'm currently reading, 'The Psychology of Military Incompetence' any criticism, however mild, is met with vitriolic personal attack. The are many other parallels between the Military mind and Police hierachy thought process as well.
The Police have admitted having a quota - end of story.
As for the woaman arrested for refusing to say where her boyfriend was (as if she knew). The Police were dumb enough to allow her back into her home unescorted where she got a message to her solicitor. When the cops heard that, they rapidly "unarrested" her and departed. This was thuggery plain and simple, a tactic that works on a lot of people, but she was smart enough for it to fail.

[Alan Wilkinson]

Its not the publics right to decide what the police tolerance levels will be. Public opinion should of course be listened to but the police must be able to operate independantly of direct influence from the Govt or the public. An individual deciding what speed tolerances apply to them stinks of arogance and a lack of tolerance for other road users.


Complete rubbish. It depends how they drive. On back country roads the safe speed can vary from 20 km/h to 120 km/h and everything in between. Drivers decide for themselves what speed to travel the whole journey and it has absolutely nothing to do with arrogance or (lack of) consideration of other road users.

[Alan Wilkinson]

I've attached a chart that clearly shows decreasing death, injury and hospitalisation rates alongside the increasing vehicle fleet. The source was the LTSA web site sometime last year.


The only relevant point here is that the rate of increase in the vehicle fleet has been insignificant compared with the increase in injuries from 2001.

[Midnight 82]

Complete rubbish. It depends how they drive. On back country roads the safe speed can vary from 20 km/h to 120 km/h and everything in between. Drivers decide for themselves what speed to travel the whole journey and it has absolutely nothing to do with arrogance or (lack of) consideration of other road users.

:spudwhat: So what are you saying that we shoult forget the laws and do what ever we want :brick:

[Alan Wilkinson]

These stories are the ones that reveal the true intent of the persons responsible for the web site. Mr Wilkinson is just another wealthy police hater like Bob Jones.

Pathetic rubbish. I judge all people by their actions. I know some fine policemen. But I can recognize low-life scum when and wherever I see them too. Others are welcome to have different opinions. I haven't made any comments about you, nor will I. You are free to answer my questions or tell me to get stuffed. But the questions will remain.

[Alan Wilkinson]

So what are you saying that we shoult forget the laws and do what ever we want

I am saying three things.

First, if any regulation is intended to promote safety then it should be a valid defence for any accused to prove that his/her actions were safe in the circumstances. So if you are doing 60 km/h on a clear wide straight road with no-one in sight then likely you could successfully defend against a charge of exceeding 50 km/h.

Second, (and the first change would force this) speed enforcement should revert to common-sense (which seems to be what Spudchucka practices) and prosecute only dangerous and stupid behaviour.

Third, we need to find ways to cater for different needs and not try to force everyone to the same speed. Different kinds of vehicles and different kinds of people doing different kinds of travelling need to be treated differently and with respect. I don't believe bureaucrats will ever do this, so I think there needs to be a move to private enterprise in the provision and operation of road systems.

[SPman]

:spudwhat: So what are you saying that we shoult forget the laws and do what ever we want :brick:
I dont think it is a matter of "forgetting" the laws.
I have always been of the opinion to follow the intent of the law, not the letter of the law. When driving / riding, I am always weighing up the conditions and surroundings of where I am and ride/drive accordingly, taking into account speed limits, traffic density, off road densities, etc. In 50 k areas I do travel faster than 50k were I feel it is safe and prudent to do so, as in 100k zones. Conversely, I also travel slower than the limit if I consider the conditions warrant it. What I dont do is slavishly follow the limit regardless. Occasionally I fall foul of the enforcement division - I dont like it but...cest la vie!
Saying that however, I am constantly appalled by a large number of drivers apparent complete lack of ability/awareness/road skills/sensibility of when and where to speed up/slow down etc. I have come to the conclusion that this is due to the fact, that probably only about 10 -15% of drivers have any interest at all in the what/why and how to properly control a vehicle on the roads, the rest couldnt give a toss - they just want to get from A to B somehow, and driving is how they do it. They arent trained properly, they have little skill in vehicle control, they dont even seem to be aware of anything outside a 2m radius of their vehicle. Basically, they dont have a clue.
To them, a car is just another consumer item, like a TV.They are dangerous at any speed. And that is what the authorities are focussing their campaigns on - the lowest common denominator of bad skills, no awareness, fear of injury, people who are afraid of their vehicles and being on the roads with others. They dont really care about those who are more accomplished drivers with higher skills and awareness levels, because they are very much in the minority. Concentrated, hands on driver training schemes are very expensive and take a long time to start having any long term visible results, even though I consider it is the only way to go. It is easier to beat the masses into submission, from a beauracrats point of view. And it can work, to a degree, in the short term. But long term....... :brick::brick:

oops...:shutup::shutup::shutup:

[Jantar]

.... To them, a car is just another consumer item, like a TV.They are dangerous at any speed. And that is what the authorities are focussing their campaigns on - the lowest common denominator of bad skills,
:

And this is the very reason that Politicians wont change the laws to reflect common sense. They are trying to protect the idiots from themselves, and in the process take revenue from everybody else.

It would make sense to most riders and drivers to have a more graduated system which recognises differing levels of skill and experience. But our police/tax gatherers would have a very difficult job in assessing a person's licence type before stopping them.

Alan Wilkinson's idea that it should be a defence to show that safety is/was not compromised would seem to me to be a good way to assess compliance with traffic regulations.

[Rainbow Wizard]

Concentrated, hands on driver training schemes are very expensive and take a long time to start having any long term visible results, even though I consider it is the only way to go. It is easier to beat the masses into submission, from a beauracrats point of view.

Swap all those gory pseudo accident ads for those of a type that actually educate. Too easy eh. :doh:

[MSTRS]

Not something real ?? God forbid

[SPman]

Swap all those gory pseudo accident ads for ones that actually educate. Too easy eh. :doh:
Like those Peter Brock ads.

[Rainbow Wizard]

Not something real ?? God forbid

"Swap all those gory pseudo accident ads for ones that actually educate. Too easy eh"

OK OK, play devil's advocate. Thanks. Surely you didn't think I meant to play ads of real accidents? Try this:

Swap all those gory pseudo accident ads for those of a type that actually educate. Too easy eh

[Alan Wilkinson]

The first question about Govt advts is whether bureaucrats actually know anything that is worth communicating.

One of the things they could know and communicate is what the road surface quality and variability is. At least then the public could put pressure on for high standard build and maintenance, and better understand where and what the risk areas and conditions are.

Duynhoven says they are going to do more measurements of skid resistance and I want to see them published publicly and promptly.

Another point is that I think young drivers would benefit from learning to drive a bike first and much better understand road conditions. Then we mightn't have girls killing themselves on wet corners in a car at 60km/h.

[Indo]

As for the woaman arrested for refusing to say where her boyfriend was (as if she knew). The Police were dumb enough to allow her back into her home unescorted where she got a message to her solicitor. When the cops heard that, they rapidly "unarrested" her and departed. This was thuggery plain and simple, a tactic that works on a lot of people, but she was smart enough for it to fail.

I always figured you were a disgruntled ex mot and a police hater, but really how can anyone with even the tiniest bit of common sense believe that shit?

Let me explain things to you. Police on a BURGLARY patrol saw a car they knew was associated with a well known criminal whom they wanted to catch. The criminal saw Police and decided to depart in a hasty fashion. When Police get to the vehicle they find the criminals girlfriend and her sister in the car. Now generally the partners of criminals are quite involved in crime themselves, you know receiving stolen goods and the like. Anyway as the driver of the car (the burglar) was commiting an offence by driving the vehicle, his passengers legally have to provide the officers with the full details of the driver including his address etc.

The girlfriend obviously did not want the Police to locate her boyfriend the criminal so refused to provide any details, she then instructed her sister to also not provide any details. The girlfriend was then warned and continued to break the law by protecting her criminal boyfriend. She was then arrested by the Police who were not really interested in arresting her but had no choice as she effectively forced them too.

Yet Alan Wilkinson this 'crusader' for truth and fact takes this episode after reading a ridiculously biased Sunday Star Times Article (you know that crappy tabloid) and posts it on his site as fact. He labels the officers who were trying to catch a burglar and acting entirely within the law as "A disgrace to my sex, three carloads of cops bullying a teenage mother. Just a gang of low-life thugs in my book". This genius in his quest then claims that Police were only acting to gain revenue off poor criminals.

Yes Alan Wilkinson is definately an impartial crusader for truth, justice and fact.

[Alan Wilkinson]

So the police were using the road tax law as a pretext to forcibly extract information from a suspect's partner regarding another matter?

And if the lawyer quoted was right, failure to give such information is not an offence subject to arrest, but only a ticket/summons?

[spudchucka]

As expected replies to Alan Wilkinson have degenerated into abuse, as sure sign of a weak counter-argument.
Do you mind pointing out the abuse. As far as I'm concerned I've done my best to answer Alan's questions fairly and accurately. When he dropped in the emotive BS question, "Are you happy about working for an organisation like that?" my attitude towards him has changed from being willing to give him a fair go to one of He's just another fuckwit like Lou. By the way that "abuse" was aimed at you, you always qualify yourself for a round of it.

[spudchucka]

Complete rubbish. It depends how they drive. On back country roads the safe speed can vary from 20 km/h to 120 km/h and everything in between. Drivers decide for themselves what speed to travel the whole journey and it has absolutely nothing to do with arrogance or (lack of) consideration of other road users.
Then its their own responsibility if they get a ticket, if they elect to exceed a posted speed limit. Where are the tickets primarily being collected? On the back country roads where you say its safe to exceed 100kph or on the main arterials?

[Alan Wilkinson]

Then its their own responsibility if they get a ticket, if they elect to exceed a posted speed limit. Where are the tickets primarily being collected? On the back country roads where you say its safe to exceed 100kph or on the main arterials?

I think you missed the point although it was quite simple. Drivers don't need speed limits to control their speeds safely. They do it already without endangering others. Moreover, almost all of them are good at it.

[spudchucka]

The only relevant point here is that the rate of increase in the vehicle fleet has been insignificant compared with the increase in injuries from 2001.
Insgnificant from the point of view of one intent on discrediting police maybe. Its a matter of opinion and yours is rapidly decreasing in value.

Between 1990 & 2004 the vehicle fleet increased 31%.
Deaths decreased 41%.
Hospitalisations decreased 15%.
Police reported injuries decreased 14%.

How are these figures "insignificant"?

You are simply playing on the fact that there was a sharp increase in road fatalities & injuries after the all time low in 2002.

I guess you have worked out some brilliant formula to show that as long as police continue with the targeted enforcement policy then the trend will continue upwards and before long will be up as high as it was in 1990.

[spudchucka]

But the questions will remain.
Go ask it elsewhere.

[Alan Wilkinson]

... the emotive BS question, "Are you happy about working for an organisation like that?"

I still think it is an entirely fair and important question and I had no preconceptions as to how you might have answered it or how you will answer it for yourself in the future. LTSA and the police have misled the public very seriously for years now about the ineffectiveness of their enforcement policies.

You simply choose to ignore all statistics and accuse me of being selective. I am not. I always try to look at all the relevant data in context. In comparison LTSA and the police are highly selective which is why the truth is a nasty shock to you all.

[spudchucka]

First, if any regulation is intended to promote safety then it should be a valid defence for any accused to prove that his/her actions were safe in the circumstances. So if you are doing 60 km/h on a clear wide straight road with no-one in sight then likely you could successfully defend against a charge of exceeding 50 km/h.I don't hqave any problem with that and its one reason that I think video cameras should be installed in all patrol cars. Caught on radar, caught on video, driver feels hard done by, let the Courts decide.


Second, (and the first change would force this) speed enforcement should revert to common-sense (which seems to be what Spudchucka practices) and prosecute only dangerous and stupid behaviour.I'm pretty easy going about speed but I have my limits that I'll always tickets for. Do 70+kph in my town and you'll almost always get a ticket. Do 65 past schools, mainly around pick up and drop of times, you'll get a ticket. Same for hospitals. If you are a known criminal then you'll get a ticket because I don't like burglars, thiefs or drug dealers and don't care what these people think.


Third, we need to find ways to cater for different needs and not try to force everyone to the same speed. Different kinds of vehicles and different kinds of people doing different kinds of travelling need to be treated differently and with respect. Please explain any practical common sense way that this could actually be implimented and enforced?


I don't believe bureaucrats will ever do this, so I think there needs to be a move to private enterprise in the provision and operation of road systems.Private roads cost a fortune. Who is going to pay for it? Who will be able to afford to use it? Who is going to police it?

Sounds like a rich mans playground for Porche drivers etc. The rest of us plebs will be stuck on the public roads I guess.

[Alan Wilkinson]

Between 1990 & 2004 the vehicle fleet increased 31%.
Deaths decreased 41%.
Hospitalisations decreased 15%.
Police reported injuries decreased 14%.

How are these figures "insignificant"?

You are simply playing on the fact that there was a sharp increase in road fatalities & injuries after the all time low in 2002.


This is getting rather tedious, but I will try once more:

Yes, there is a long term trend everywhere in the developed world to reduced traffic casualties.

However, in New Zealand there has been a sharp upward trend in injuries concurrent with the introduction of rigid enforcement of speed limits. There has been no detectable impact on the long term trends in fatalities.

This has nothing to do with any individual annual totals and the charts are all based on monthly figures in any case.

[spudchucka]

Swap all those gory pseudo accident ads for those of a type that actually educate. Too easy eh
Why not swap them for real life & death footage from actual crashes, where real people died and got badly injured. Real blood, real screams, the freaky silence that follows a serious traffic crash, it would be great entertainment as well as educational and informative. We could follow up with an in depth look at what happens at the mortuary following a sudden death. We could see the cops cleaning the blood, gravel and glass out of the deceased persons face to make the body more presentable for the family members coming to identify their loved one. Not to mention the post mortem, Steven King movies have got nothing on a good PM. And to top it off lets have a documentary following the grief stricken families, it could a longitudinal study about how little kids suffer growing up without a mum or a dad or both.

[Alan Wilkinson]

Please explain any practical common sense way that this could actually be implimented and enforced?.
A first step is simply to build at least four lane divided highways on the main arterials and make slower traffic keep left.

Then we could have toll lanes and routes for higher speed travel.

Hans Monderman is producing better human engineering for urban road sharing in Europe which puts more responsibility on the road users.



Private roads cost a fortune. Who is going to pay for it? Who will be able to afford to use it? Who is going to police it?

Sounds like a rich mans playground for Porche drivers etc. The rest of us plebs will be stuck on the public roads I guess.

No, private roads cost the same or less than public roads. Only the way they are paid for is different. That goes for both initial capital funding and user pays.

[spudchucka]

Yet Alan Wilkinson this 'crusader' for truth and fact takes this episode after reading a ridiculously biased Sunday Star Times Article (you know that crappy tabloid) and posts it on his site as fact. He labels the officers who were trying to catch a burglar and acting entirely within the law as "A disgrace to my sex, three carloads of cops bullying a teenage mother. Just a gang of low-life thugs in my book". This genius in his quest then claims that Police were only acting to gain revenue off poor criminals.

Yes Alan Wilkinson is definately an impartial crusader for truth, justice and fact.
Thanks Indo, you took the words right out of my mouth.

[James Deuce]

It's a shame to waste my 3000th post on this, but rather than developing respect for your position Mr Wilkinson, it has plummeted rather quickly.

You have resorted to patronising questions, attempting to bait a policeman I happen to respect into defending his career and labelling him as tedious, and fundamentally showing a lack of respect for your position as a very new member of a forum devoted to the social aspects of motorcycling. Not only that, you take an intellectual stance on your viewpoint, and contradict that by using emotive arguments when pushed hard to explain your position by someone with a differing view.

You have demonstrated an attitude that is merely the flipside of the former LTSA. They have their propaganda, and you have yours. I rather suspect that the common sense solution lies somewhere in between.

All in all, not a very politic way to attempt to recruit supporters.

[spudchucka]

So the police were using the road tax law as a pretext to forcibly extract information from a suspect's partner regarding another matter?
So you are against police using whatever lawful means available to them to catch burglars. Don't moan when your place gets knocked over then.

[spudchucka]

Drivers don't need speed limits to control their speeds safely. They do it already without endangering others.
So why do so many of the idiots crash then?

Don't tell me, I know, its because there are cops out on the road that might give them a ticket for speeding.

Sounds pretty ridiculas doesn't it but thats what you are saying has happened since the HP was introduced.

[spudchucka]

I still think it is an entirely fair and important question and I had no preconceptions as to how you might have answered it or how you will answer it for yourself in the future. LTSA and the police have misled the public very seriously for years now about the ineffectiveness of their enforcement policies.

You simply choose to ignore all statistics and accuse me of being selective. I am not. I always try to look at all the relevant data in context. In comparison LTSA and the police are highly selective which is why the truth is a nasty shock to you all.
You are no better than any of them. You are simply promoting stats that support your own world view.

[Waylander]

You are no better than any of them. You are simply promoting stats that support your own world view.
Kinda like the american nation aye.....

[modalx]

God Almighty here we are again. Why is it so difficult to have a discussion about this without immediately climbing into entrenched polarised positions and personal attacks? Could we consider for a moment that Alan Wilkinson might not be an anarchistic crackpot with a chip on his shoulder? Maybe we could even imagine that our leaders and their enforcers might have at least begun with our best interests at heart however misguided they seem now?

Reading this thread I can sympathise with Spud and co for whom the burden of the defence weighs so heavily. The thing is that this is not actually about you or your colleagues Spud. The reason it is a hot topic for most people is that the current situation feels bad. It feels unfair when you get a ticket for 111ks in the middle of nowhere. It feels that way because you can't make yourself believe that what you have done is so dangerous or so wrong when the rule is so arbitrary. They know that the 111ks they were doing on the highway was definitely safer than the truck that passed them doing a legal 80ks on the Kopu hill. They recognise BS when they get handed it.

So you could argue that this is just overconfidence or some lack of understanding about the nature of vehicles and driving. Interestingly though, in places where speed limits are raised, the average vehicle speed only rises a few ks (Montana experience amongst others). Why? Because people are actually taking responsibility for their speed. They are not, in fact, speed crazed lunatics straining to be let off the leash. Most people (no not all people but this is about a population based approach to reducing harm on the road and there will always be a few...) have a good feel for what is safe for their skills, their vehicle and the conditions.

Now you can crush this sense of personal responsibility with draconian controls (as has been ably demonstrated in Victoria) with the intention of 'resetting' attitudes and I guess that might be an acceptable way to go if the benefits could be clearly demonstrated. Thats why the stats are so important. We spend a mountain of cash on trying to crack this nut but the evidence is that we are definitely not making much of a difference and quite probably throwing good money after bad.

[spudchucka]

This is getting rather tedious, but I will try once more:

Yes, there is a long term trend everywhere in the developed world to reduced traffic casualties.

However, in New Zealand there has been a sharp upward trend in injuries concurrent with the introduction of rigid enforcement of speed limits. There has been no detectable impact on the long term trends in fatalities.

This has nothing to do with any individual annual totals and the charts are all based on monthly figures in any case.
Its getting tedious because the whole arguement always goes around in circles. Why? Because there is just as much data, stats, research etc on both sides of the arguement to cancel each others arguements out.

Truth be known I don't pay any attention to stats or research, its usualy produced / published by people without any grasp on the reality of the subjects they are reporting on. My opinions are formed according on what I see every day regardless of what looney campaigners, politiicians, LTSA or police hierachy for that matter publish to promote their individual causes.

[MSTRS]

It's a shame to waste my 3000th post on this, but rather than developing respect for your position Mr Wilkinson, it has plummeted rather quickly.

You have resorted to patronising questions, attempting to bait a policeman I happen to respect into defending his career and labelling him as tedious, and fundamentally showing a lack of respect for your position as a very new member of a forum devoted to the social aspects of motorcycling. Not only that, you take an intellectual stance on your viewpoint, and contradict that by using emotive arguments when pushed hard to explain your position by someone with a differing view.

You have demonstrated an attitude that is merely the flipside of the former LTSA. They have their propaganda, and you have yours. I rather suspect that the common sense solution lies somewhere in between.

All in all, not a very politic way to attempt to recruit supporters.

A 'glorious beacon of light' illuminating the middle ground of a rapidly degenerating, polarised argument that can only go in circles.

[spudchucka]

A first step is simply to build at least four lane divided highways on the main arterials and make slower traffic keep left.

Then we could have toll lanes and routes for higher speed travel.

Hans Monderman is producing better human engineering for urban road sharing in Europe which puts more responsibility on the road users.



No, private roads cost the same or less than public roads. Only the way they are paid for is different. That goes for both initial capital funding and user pays.
Fair enough but can you really ever see little ol NZ being able to financially support a highway as you describe the full length of the country? With our current population levels.

If its a private toll road it will be the domain of the very rich only. Ordinary NZ's will have to lose their homes, farmland etc etc to provide room for the luxury of the few who could actually afford to indulge in it. I'm no lefty commie type but the sound of that is too much capitalism for my tolerance levels.

[spudchucka]

Kinda like the american nation aye.....
Not sure about that one but if you say so.......

[modalx]

It's a shame to waste my 3000th post on this, but rather than developing respect for your position Mr Wilkinson, it has plummeted rather quickly.

You have resorted to patronising questions, attempting to bait a policeman I happen to respect into defending his career and labelling him as tedious, and fundamentally showing a lack of respect for your position as a very new member of a forum devoted to the social aspects of motorcycling. Not only that, you take an intellectual stance on your viewpoint, and contradict that by using emotive arguments when pushed hard to explain your position by someone with a differing view.

You have demonstrated an attitude that is merely the flipside of the former LTSA. They have their propaganda, and you have yours. I rather suspect that the common sense solution lies somewhere in between.

All in all, not a very politic way to attempt to recruit supporters.


Fair enough - but looking back over the thread I'd say the other side of the argument has been at least as personal and disrespectful.

[Waylander]

Not sure about that one but if you say so.......
Trust me the news in the states is all turned inward and no one really cares what happens outside thier own little world. But I think that argument belongs in another thread so have fun with this one.

[MSTRS]

God Almighty here we are again. Why is it so difficult to have a discussion about this without immediately climbing into entrenched polarised positions and personal attacks? Could we consider for a moment that Alan Wilkinson might not be an anarchistic crackpot with a chip on his shoulder? Maybe we could even imagine that our leaders and their enforcers might have at least begun with our best interests at heart however misguided they seem now?

Reading this thread I can sympathise with Spud and co for whom the burden of the defence weighs so heavily. The thing is that this is not actually about you or your colleagues Spud. The reason it is a hot topic for most people is that the current situation feels bad. It feels unfair when you get a ticket for 111ks in the middle of nowhere. It feels that way because you can't make yourself believe that what you have done is so dangerous or so wrong when the rule is so arbitrary. They know that the 111ks they were doing on the highway was definitely safer than the truck that passed them doing a legal 80ks on the Kopu hill. They recognise BS when they get handed it.

So you could argue that this is just overconfidence or some lack of understanding about the nature of vehicles and driving. Interestingly though, in places where speed limits are raised, the average vehicle speed only rises a few ks (Montana experience amongst others). Why? Because people are actually taking responsibility for their speed. They are not, in fact, speed crazed lunatics straining to be let off the leash. Most people (no not all people but this is about a population based approach to reducing harm on the road and there will always be a few...) have a good feel for what is safe for their skills, their vehicle and the conditions.

Now you can crush this sense of personal responsibility with draconian controls (as has been ably demonstrated in Victoria) with the intention of 'resetting' attitudes and I guess that might be an acceptable way to go if the benefits could be clearly demonstrated. Thats why the stats are so important. We spend a mountain of cash on trying to crack this nut but the evidence is that we are definitely not making much of a difference and quite probably throwing good money after bad.
The wilderness of reason is experiencing a huge rise in population. My stats say that 10 minutes has seen a doubling of said population.

[spudchucka]

Reading this thread I can sympathise with Spud and co for whom the burden of the defence weighs so heavily. The thing is that this is not actually about you or your colleagues Spud.
I don't take any of it personaly although I can understand from my posts that some might think I do. Its my style of writing and I'm not prone to holding back when confronted with what I perceive to be BS. The few KB people that have met me, (I think they would at least), would tell you that I am a pretty mild mannered person.

Alan Wilkinson and Lou etc would go up in my estimation if they stuck to the topic that they say is their issue, traffic enforcement policy. But they don't, they carry on with a campaign of dirty politics and smear tactics simply to discredit the police at any opportunity. For this reason I have nothing but utter contempt for them.

[MSTRS]

I don't take any of it personaly although I can understand from my posts that some might think I do. Its my style of writing and I'm not prone to holding back when confronted with what I perceive to be BS. The few KB people that have met me, (I think they would at least), would tell you that I am a pretty mannered person.

Alan Wilkinson and Lou etc would go up in my estimation if they stuck to the topic that they say is their issue, traffic enforcement policy. But they don't, they carry on with a campaign of dirty politics and smear tactics simply to discredit the police at any opportunity. For this reason I have nothing but utter contempt for them.
Well Spud, your manners are pretty :laugh:

[modalx]

I don't know that the intention is to rubbish the police. They just cop it because they have to front the policy. The frustration is because of the sense of unfairness and increasingly because its seems there is lots of pain with not much gain.

[Blakamin]

It seems us KB'rs aren't a bunch of blind statistic followers, aye? :niceone:

[Jantar]

.... they carry on with a campaign of dirty politics and smear tactics simply to discredit the police at any opportunity. For this reason I have nothing but utter contempt for them.

Unfortunately, Spud, there are enough of your colleagues who give them the ammunition and reason. I know enough cops socially to know that most of the bad press that the NZ police receive isn't due to the guys on the front line, it is handed down from much higher up. There area few front line ones who just enjoy making life hard for the average citizen, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

Don't pay too much attention to what appears to be directed at you. I know anything I say bad about the police force isn't directed at you or any of the other cops on here, its directed at the politicians who make the policy. Chances are that some of the personal comments that others are making is also directed more at the system rather than at you.

[hobdar]

K. In my opinion you can make Stats to say what you like. Especially when there are multiple factors taken into account. And you ignore aspects or blips in the statistics. Generally people who use stats have a specific point of view and attempt to use the stats to uphold that view point, the problem comes when people who are 'zealous' about their view that they begin to ignore aspects of the stats that they do not like. Or present the statistics without fully explaining what they are saying...ok so thats my rant on stats now Alan seems to be presenting a very liberal point of view on driving that scares me, and i don't even ride a bike yet......one thing he said was

Drivers don't need speed limits to control their speeds safely. They do it already without endangering others. Moreover, almost all of them are good at it.

So next we have the public allowed to decide if they give way or stop at an intersection...and maybee we should let them decide if they keep a gun and not get a licence for it, after all it is only the Governement that tells us they need one and it is a money making exercise after all....

And the assumption that we are all good drivers who drive safely and limit our speed is based on what proof that this is the case....

Has any one else noticed that people actually go faster in the rain....

Every day i drive i see people who drive too fast, erratically, turn in front of other cars (note i am currently a 'cage' driver looking for a bike) do things that only by sheer coinciedence does not result in a crash, bikers zooming in between traffic on the motorway, sometimes only norrowly missing cars. And other people who have obtained their licence (i assume) and been passed as fit to drive a car, but i sure as heck am thankful for the Road Code and the police who are there to help us be safe and to keep us safe from others on the road.

Alan also atated that Quote: "Originally Posted by Alan Wilkinson
Complete rubbish. It depends how they drive. On back country roads the safe speed can vary from 20 km/h to 120 km/h and everything in between. Drivers decide for themselves what speed to travel the whole journey and it has absolutely nothing to do with arrogance or (lack of) consideration of other road users. "

Why stop at 120km/h why not 140 + or 160 + ? There are people in our society who think that those speed limits are safe, there is a regular occurance of people being caught at these speeds.

This is why we have laws. They are put in place by Government, enforced by the police and when they are broken punishement is handed down by the judicary to protect us from ourselves and from others.

To have a society with out laws or enforcement would lead to higher rates of injury, death and carnage not just on our roads but in society as general.

All credit to the cop on the beat, in all my dealings (many both on the right side getting help and wrong side being a pillock) they have been fair and curteous. if i speed i deserve a ticket simple...they enforce the law not make the law and in a democratic society that division needs to be in place.

[Waylander]

Was reading another thread and wonderd how Alan would answere this; if everyone already drives at a safe speed for them why do boyracers wreck and endanger others everyday they are on the road? Obviosly they are not driving at speeds that are safe for them and are a great risk to others. Granted not all boy racers are idiots. So how would you propose to keep everyone safe if all of them could drive at whatever speed they want?

[spudchucka]

Well Spud, your manners are pretty :laugh:
Repaired..... I left out the "mild" part.

[spudchucka]

I don't know that the intention is to rubbish the police. They just cop it because they have to front the policy. The frustration is because of the sense of unfairness and increasingly because its seems there is lots of pain with not much gain.
I can understand that some people might take that position but the likes of Alan Wilkinson,
PhD, BSc(Hons).
Currently a director of several private companies and investor. Previously a research scientist, university senior lecturer, computer software programmer and consultant, and founding partner in Marshal Software Ltd. should be slightly more sophisticated than to just shoot the messenger.

[spudchucka]

Unfortunately, Spud, there are enough of your colleagues who give them the ammunition and reason. I know enough cops socially to know that most of the bad press that the NZ police receive isn't due to the guys on the front line, it is handed down from much higher up.I'm not arguing that changes aren't there to be made.

What pisses me off with guys like Alan and Lou is that they just shoot blindly at any opportunity. Their knowledge of the actual facts regarding policy and operational procedure is severely limited, (niether of them, as far as I'm aware, has ever been a police officer), yet for some reason they think that they are in a position to pass what they lead others to believe is "expert" comment. The truth is that their opinions regarding police policy, (thats all they are, opinions) are based on assumption and very little facts.

Alan has a whole web site of stats and graphs to support his claims. So what? The LTSA and police have just as many stats and graphs to support their side of the issue. Whose facts are more factual than whose? For anyone that actually cares, (and I don't think many would put their hands up), I'd suggest reading Allan's site, alongside the LTSA and police sites, then sum it up with your own experiences with a large dulop of common sense and make up your own minds.


There area few front line ones who just enjoy making life hard for the average citizen, but they are the exception rather than the rule.I've come across only two that I would place in this category and they both got what was coming to them. Cops aren't immune from a good karma slap.


Don't pay too much attention to what appears to be directed at you. I know anything I say bad about the police force isn't directed at you or any of the other cops on here, its directed at the politicians who make the policy. Chances are that some of the personal comments that others are making is also directed more at the system rather than at you.
I don't take it personally, these people don't know me other than the KB persona they see on the screen. And no its not a picture of me in my profile either.

[modalx]

A couple of things are coming up. One is the issue of statistics and whether or not you can trust them. The general sentiment seems to be that they are so easily manipulated that they are of no real use. I guess my question then is how do we know what we should do to improve anything? And by anything I mean well ANYTHING. We have done so well technologically in the last 200 years because of a concept called the 'scientific method'. This is based on the idea that to make progress and not get confused by random events and various biases, you need to decide very specifically what proposition or idea you want to test, design an experiment, then you carefully measure and assess to see if your idea was correct.

When we do things in our own lives we usually make decisions based on personal previous experience or 'intuition' or what side of the bed we got out of. When we are spending huge amounts of public money (our taxes) on trying to improve something we need to be much more rigorous than that. It would be irresponsible to rely on gut feeling. We might think intuitively that there would be fewer injuries on the roads if no-one exceeded 100kph but that is not good enough. To make it even worse we have to be sure not only that rigid enforcement works to reduce injuries but that rigid enforcement is the BEST way and also that it is WORTH the cost. We know at the very best that rigid enforcement has had a minimal effect. There are many many other ways of spending that tax dollar which might be much better value for society overall.

So we need the statistics and they are not really that hard. The trouble is that most of us don't have the time to wade through the detail to make sure we understand the context and the constraints of the analysis. We need to have experts we can trust to do this on our behalf. Much of science has a good way to do that through the major journals. If a major journal publishes something we can be assured that it has been checked in detail because the journal's reputation relies on accurate work. Unfortunately most of the research used to support the speed policies in NZ and Aussie is based on the work of a very small number of people most of whom work for organisations whose kudos and reputation relies on the acceptance of the Victorian flavour of the 'speed kills' doctrine. That's just the reality of it - I'm not knocking them for being passionate. But there is plenty of research from elsewhere (and now specific outcome data right here in NZ) that should be making us go - hmmmm...

This is not about telling people they can do what they like on the road for heaven's sake - its about being thoughtful, accurate and efficient when we (as a society) decide to step in to regulate the behaviour of our citizens. Governments make bad decisions too.

[spudchucka]

Mr Wilkinson didn't exactly rate very highly on my list of people whose opinions matters to me, then I read this


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

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

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

on his web site and now he's firmly at the bottom of the list. Not that it would bother him at all I guess.

[spudchucka]

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


Rigid speed limit enforcement by the NZ police produced no change in fatality trend but a large upward trend in crashes and injuries in every district. Waikato got it sooner - with the introduction of hidden speed cameras. Excessive speeding tickets just mean more traffic injuries but no fewer deaths.

I would like Alan to explain to me logicaly and in common every day language, without the use of statistics, how exactly rigid speed limit enforcement by police is responsible for an upward trend in crashes and injuries.

[Waylander]

Think the upward trend in deaths has more to do with the rise in popularity of street racing probably.

[Alan Wilkinson]

You have resorted to patronising questions, attempting to bait a policeman I happen to respect into defending his career and labelling him as tedious, and fundamentally showing a lack of respect for your position as a very new member of a forum devoted to the social aspects of motorcycling. Not only that, you take an intellectual stance on your viewpoint, and contradict that by using emotive arguments when pushed hard to explain your position by someone with a differing view.


Drivel. I have not used any emotive arguments, neither have I baited Spud - he is obviously capable of frothing at the mouth without any baiting whatever. I did find it tedious to have to explain the same factors yet again in this thread but I didn't label him tedious.

[Alan Wilkinson]

how exactly rigid speed limit enforcement by police is responsible for an upward trend in crashes and injuries

The short answer is no-one knows yet why it has happened. It would be helpful if the police and MOT recognised and admitted that it has happened and assisted an investigation of why.

At the moment we can only speculate on possible reasons. They include various consequences of making overtaking more difficult including congestion & close following, boredom, frustration, trying to maintain the speed limit on slow sections of roads, speedo watching.

But we need analysis to find out what kinds of crashes have increased. All I know is that it is NZ wide, worst in Southern police district and applies both in 100 km/h and 50 km/h areas.

[Alan Wilkinson]

So you are against police using whatever lawful means available to them to catch burglars. Don't moan when your place gets knocked over then.

I believe that taking a baby away from its mother in order to force her to talk amounts to mental torture and thuggery and even if it was lawful (and at least one lawyer says it was not) it is not something that I condone.

And no, not everything that is lawful should be done.

[Alan Wilkinson]

Mr Wilkinson didn't exactly rate very highly on my list of people whose opinions matters to me, then I read this on his web site and now he's firmly at the bottom of the list. Not that it would bother him at all I guess.

Ah, we agree about something at last, Spud.

[Alan Wilkinson]

Was reading another thread and wonderd how Alan would answere this; if everyone already drives at a safe speed for them why do boyracers wreck and endanger others everyday they are on the road? Obviosly they are not driving at speeds that are safe for them and are a great risk to others. Granted not all boy racers are idiots. So how would you propose to keep everyone safe if all of them could drive at whatever speed they want?

I have never said that everyone always drives at a safe speed.

I have said that speed limit enforcement should be common sense prosecuting dangerous and stupid behaviour and it should be a defence if you can prove you were driving safely in the circumstances that applied.

My example of driving country roads was just to show that people have been using their own judgement about safe speed for a long time and that does not equate to being irresponsible.

[Waylander]

But sometimes what someone judges to be a safe speed is quite dangerous. imagine if you will someone is coming around a blind corner at about 150 KmH or so and someone goin the sam direction is doin about 50KmH just on the other side of the turn. Both drivers doin that they judge to be safe speed. now you tell me what do you think will happen?? Should the first driver be able to get out of the fine and possible jail time for killing/injurring/coliding with the second driver just by saying he/she was going what they deemed to be a safe speed?

[speedpro]

The law quite nicely covers that scenario, something along the lines of being able to stop before you hit anything. If the corner is so tight as to be "blind" then you must travel at a low enough speed that you are able to stop if something comes into view.

[Waylander]

But from what i understand Allen says nothing about it as far as i know (i havnt read his site and i dont plan to but i have been keeping a close attention to what has been goin on in this thread.)

[Indo]

So the police were using the road tax law as a pretext to forcibly extract information from a suspect's partner regarding another matter?

No those terrible revenue gathering Police were using the law and entirely legal means to attempt to catch a burglar.


And if the lawyer quoted was right, failure to give such information is not an offence subject to arrest, but only a ticket/summons?

He's completely incorrect, Obstruction is almost entirely a matter dealt with by arrest. Really Allan don't you even bother to research at all before jumping to conclusions and slandering Police all based on what you read in a Sunday Tabloid?

[moko]

something that's pissed me off for a long time is people sat in the middle/right hand lane. In the UK where I learnt to drive, you get a good bollockin for doing that. It's dangerous and slows other traffic down.]

Dont know how long you`ve been away mate but you hardly see a traffic cop these days and lane-hogging is back big-style.Really hacks me off following some idiot doing 10 m.p.h. below the speed limit in the wrong lane.Like everyone else I undertake which is illegal and potentially dangerous,I`ve had people suddenly decide to pull over before now as I`ve gone on their inside,cant complain really as it`s me breaking the law.
Best thing about riding here is that filtering is legal and zapping through heavy traffic is as exhilerating as speeding on an empty road,you need to be totally aware of everything going on around you and it sorts out the skilled rider from the throttle-wringer,funny how it`s always the sports bikes you`ll find sitting in jams in the summer.

[Alan Wilkinson]

But sometimes what someone judges to be a safe speed is quite dangerous. imagine if you will someone is coming around a blind corner at about 150 KmH or so and someone goin the sam direction is doin about 50KmH just on the other side of the turn. Both drivers doin that they judge to be safe speed. now you tell me what do you think will happen?? Should the first driver be able to get out of the fine and possible jail time for killing/injurring/coliding with the second driver just by saying he/she was going what they deemed to be a safe speed?
You have to prove your actions were safe in the circumstances. That doesn't mean that you think it is safe, it means that it is safe.

[Alan Wilkinson]

No those terrible revenue gathering Police were using the law and entirely legal means to attempt to catch a burglar.

He's completely incorrect, Obstruction is almost entirely a matter dealt with by arrest. Really Allan don't you even bother to research at all before jumping to conclusions and slandering Police all based on what you read in a Sunday Tabloid?

So why did the police then let her go? Because the mental torture hadn't worked? Or because they were afraid of the public or legal reaction?

[Alan Wilkinson]

I can understand that some people might take that position but the likes of Alan Wilkinson, should be slightly more sophisticated than to just shoot the messenger.

The bottom line, after all this ad hominem BS from the cops, is that for the last four years the police have been executing a very costly policy which hasn't worked and seems to have made things substantially worse.

The supporters of that policy, for whatever personal or psychological reasons, simply refuse to look at the results and say they don't believe in statistics. Everyone should just obey the law they say.

I am used to running a business. Everything we do has a cost. When we do something we monitor it to see if it works. If it doesn't work we fix it or stop doing it.

I have no sympathy for any other approach.

[Paul in NZ]

The trouble is Alan....

Us ordinary folk just want to be left alone and allowed to get on with our lives. We are happy enough for some boundaries to be placed by society and content to abide by them provided all others do. We form the vast majority.

Either side of the great bell curve of opinion lie the extremists. Both ends believe that us folk in the middle are the great unwashed and it is their job to lead us in the direction of the truth.

In most cases the great unwashed, uneducated mouth breathers in the middle don't like or trust the kitten juggling zealots at either end of the spectrum preaching at us. In this sense and despite what lou thinks, you are getting a similar (no, scratch that - better) reception that the head of the LTSA or the minister of police would get.

Most of us have reasonable cars but the last thing we want is un-regulated speed limits. While successful business people (like yourself i should not wonder) may have the where withall to drive their XR8's at max velocity those of us that choose a different path do not want to share the public roads with them.

While most of us will agree with you that some rules and regulations need to be adjusted and corrected you might have to face the fact that your message needs to be modified or presented differently to have a broader appeal. You run the risk of appearing to be yet another extremeist badgering the locals. People don't like that! No matter how truthfull the message!

My observation is that just lately (and in an election year) the HP is backing off slightly. Thats good!

My other observation is - This is not a season for liberal policies in security or policing. Thank your lucky stars your live here where we can enjoy this discussion and have roads to drive on.

Paul N

ps - BTW thanks for occupying that space at the far end of the curve, without it the dark side would take over.

[Alan Wilkinson]

Fair enough but can you really ever see little ol NZ being able to financially support a highway as you describe the full length of the country? With our current population levels.

Yes, the amount Northland has wasted on welfare over the last fifty years could have employed enough people on roadworks to do the whole of SH1.

Scandanavia (Denmark/Norway/Sweden) are very similar populations and have roads of incomparably better standard.



If its a private toll road it will be the domain of the very rich only. Ordinary NZ's will have to lose their homes, farmland etc etc to provide room for the luxury of the few who could actually afford to indulge in it. I'm no lefty commie type but the sound of that is too much capitalism for my tolerance levels.

This is complete nonsense. There are toll roads everywhere. You pay for what you use, not what others use. There are not enough rich people to fund them, just as there are not enough rich people to fund The Warehouse or an airline. Businesses succeed by providing ordinary people with what they want at a price they can afford. How do you think Toll Holdings got the money to buy NZ Rail?

[Alan Wilkinson]

The short answer is no-one knows yet why [the increase in injuries] has happened. It would be helpful if the police and MOT recognised and admitted that it has happened and assisted an investigation of why.

At the moment we can only speculate on possible reasons. They include various consequences of making overtaking more difficult including congestion & close following, boredom, frustration, trying to maintain the speed limit on slow sections of roads, speedo watching.

But we need analysis to find out what kinds of crashes have increased. All I know is that it is NZ wide, worst in Southern police district and applies both in 100 km/h and 50 km/h areas.

This is an interesting page based on UK data:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/why.html

The speculation that driving to the speedo lowers driver sensitivity to reducing speed in risky contexts is similar to some of my suggestions, and also fits with Hans Moderman's work which says that removing bureaucratic instructions (explicit and implied by road engineering) improves safety outcomes by transfering responsibility to the road user.

The problem is that we now have a huge industry of beneficiaries of the bureaucratic control approach. It is going to be hard to roll it all back or to do anything which threatens their interests.

PS: This is not the first time we have seen this effect in NZ. Check out the long term trends here:

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

After an initial fall around 1974 during the first oil shock when fuel was rationed, carless days and an 80 km/h open road speed limit were imposed, casualties rose until the speed limit was relaxed to 100 km/h in 1985 and modern second-hand imports were allowed. Then a long period of steady decline in casualties commenced.

[Indo]

So why did the police then let her go? Because the mental torture hadn't worked? Or because they were afraid of the public or legal reaction?

I don't know Alan, maybe it was because they didn't want to waste any more time dealing with the scumbag partner of a burgular. Maybe they got called to another job. Who knows, it doesn't change the fact that you went raving and ranting off about the Police all based on what you read in a crappy Sunday Tabloid paper without making any attempt to research the matter first. In my books it really makes you look like an idiot with a massive agenda.

BTW Alan whatever happened to those government spies in the Maori party?

[spudchucka]

The short answer is no-one knows yet why it has happened. It would be helpful if the police and MOT recognised and admitted that it has happened and assisted an investigation of why.

At the moment we can only speculate on possible reasons. They include various consequences of making overtaking more difficult including congestion & close following, boredom, frustration, trying to maintain the speed limit on slow sections of roads, speedo watching.

But we need analysis to find out what kinds of crashes have increased. All I know is that it is NZ wide, worst in Southern police district and applies both in 100 km/h and 50 km/h areas.
Right, I get it now. Its just pure speculation! A quirky odd occurence that nobody can prove the cause of.

So why do you pass it of as fact? Lets think about that for a moment............................................ .......







Hmmm, I can't think a good reason. I guess you are just a LIAR!

By the way, the MOT was disbanded in the early 1990's, you obviously haven't moved on.

[spudchucka]

So why did the police then let her go? Because the mental torture hadn't worked? Or because they were afraid of the public or legal reaction?
Is your PHD a Doctor of Assumption? I would have thought a research scientist would be willing and able to do some reseach into an issue before drawing any conclusions.

I guess its just much easier to score points through the tabloid media approach.

[spudchucka]

Yes, the amount Northland has wasted on welfare over the last fifty years could have employed enough people on roadworks to do the whole of SH1.

Scandanavia (Denmark/Norway/Sweden) are very similar populations and have roads of incomparably better standard.



This is complete nonsense. There are toll roads everywhere. You pay for what you use, not what others use. There are not enough rich people to fund them, just as there are not enough rich people to fund The Warehouse or an airline. Businesses succeed by providing ordinary people with what they want at a price they can afford. How do you think Toll Holdings got the money to buy NZ Rail?
If you want to control welfare and roading then get yourself elected and into Govt. All your web site will achieve is to attract a few like minded zealots that will moan endlessly and write countless letters to ministers and newspaper editors about the injustices of all this "revenue gathering" and how the police are a bunch of thugs, blah blah bloody blah. At the end of the day you'll achieve stuff all apart from forming an exclusive club of moaning twats.

I'd like to know what the GDP of Scandanavia (Denmark/Norway/Sweden) is compared to NZ's. What is the average income per household? How much tax do they pay? What is the cost of fuel? How much tax is collected from the fuel pump? How is that tax subsequently spent? What is their annual roading budget in comparison to NZ? What are the open road and residential speed limits? How are these policed? What are the penalties for speeding infringements? What is the cost of insurance? What is required to obtain a drivers licence in Scandanavia (Denmark/Norway/Sweden)? Then I'd be happy to make a comparison between NZ and Scandanavia (Denmark/Norway/Sweden).

And if you have time could you also please find out the price of fish in Scandanavia (Denmark/Norway/Sweden)?

Thanks for your help.

[spudchucka]

The bottom line, after all this ad hominem BS from the cops, is that for the last four years the police have been executing a very costly policy which hasn't worked and seems to have made things substantially worse.

The supporters of that policy, for whatever personal or psychological reasons, simply refuse to look at the results and say they don't believe in statistics. Everyone should just obey the law they say.

I am used to running a business. Everything we do has a cost. When we do something we monitor it to see if it works. If it doesn't work we fix it or stop doing it.

I have no sympathy for any other approach.
So I'm guessing you want to privatise the police and become the boss. That would probably be a way that you could change the things you want to change.

Only thing is that then the police would be a business and would have to turn a profit. I wonder how they would do that?? Whats a way that the police could generate an income??? Hey, I know....... they could hand out traffic tickets for speeding and stuff....... so long as I'm getting a good commision I'll hand the bastards out all day long..... stuff it...... I'll even do overtime.... do check points in my own time to make and extra few bucks....... shit this is a great idea........ where do I sign up! :spudwave: Thats me waving at the next motorist to stop and part with their money.

[speedpro]

Could be time for an afternoon nap, all the kids are getting scratchy. :whistle:

[Hitcher]

Having done two reasonably solid days riding this weekend, exiting both sides of Dodge, I am increasingly appalled at the driving habits of "meanderthals" in cages. One thing the Police/LTSA obsession with "speed" has done has been to dumb down the skill level of your average common-or-garden motorist.

They have forgotten the art of courtesy and they have forgotten how to overtake -- even on motorways or where passing lanes are marked. They have few driving "skills" at all.

Widening roads will be no cure. Ditto straightening them. There will just be four lanes (or how ever many there are) of them dollying along side by side annoying the likes of me.

A better solution may be to make roads narrower and windier so they kill themselves off...

You can't actually enjoy your ride by dibbly dobblying along with them either. Because they mostly drive automatics and go fast slow fast slow fast slow doing the braking with their left feet. And then when you've had enough they'll do an unindicatored lane change right in front of you, or just "merge" into your lane expecting you to get yourself out of their bloody way.

And we know not to mention cellphones and texting...

I'm going to get a frikkin' laser beam bolted to my helmet.

[Paul in NZ]

I'm going to get a frikkin' laser beam bolted to my helmet.

You telling me that monster does not come with a death ray as an optional extra? How disappointing modern technology is proving to be..

Paul N

[Hitcher]

You telling me that monster does not come with a death ray as an optional extra? How disappointing modern technology is proving to be..

Paul N
I think that's only an option on the US market model...

[Waylander]

I think that's only an option on the US market model...
Nope, all ours are after market

[spudchucka]

Having done two reasonably solid days riding this weekend, exiting both sides of Dodge, I am increasingly appalled at the driving habits of "meanderthals" in cages. One thing the Police/LTSA obsession with "speed" has done has been to dumb down the skill level of your average common-or-garden motorist.
They were just as dumb before. Its just that its a new kind of dumb now!

[scumdog]

The bottom line, after all this ad hominem BS from the cops, is that for the last four years the police have been executing a very costly policy which hasn't worked and seems to have made things substantially worse.

The supporters of that policy, for whatever personal or psychological reasons, simply refuse to look at the results and say they don't believe in statistics. Everyone should just obey the law they say.

I am used to running a business. Everything we do has a cost. When we do something we monitor it to see if it works. If it doesn't work we fix it or stop doing it.

I have no sympathy for any other approach.

My "ad hominem BS" which happens to parralel that of other in the same line of work down here is that the serious crashes have declined steadily over the last 3-4 years (about the same time the 'de facto' speed limit went from 120+ down to 110 -.
O.K., I'll put my neck on the block to a certain extent by admitting I have no 'figures' to substantiate the above but it is true.

Mind you our population growth is lagging behind that of the top of the North Island so our vehicle & population has not increased as much this may be reflected in the number of crashes up the 'other end'.

How do you measure a life saved in dollars? And how do you count/measure the hypothetical lives saved?

[Clockwork]

How do you measure a life saved in dollars? And how do you count/measure the hypothetical lives saved?

Why does everything these days have to be expressed in dollars and cents :spudwhat:

[Alan Wilkinson]

Right, I get it now. Its just pure speculation! A quirky odd occurence that nobody can prove the cause of.

So why do you pass it of as fact? Lets think about that for a moment............................................ .......

Hmmm, I can't think a good reason. I guess you are just a LIAR!

By the way, the MOT was disbanded in the early 1990's, you obviously haven't moved on.

You are truly amazing, Spud. I can't be bothered with your drivel any longer. But one last fact for you. There is indeed still a Ministry of Transport in Wellington. And it has just taken back responsibility for Transport Safety policy from LTSA which has been disbanded.

[Alan Wilkinson]

My "ad hominem BS" which happens to parralel that of other in the same line of work down here is that the serious crashes have declined steadily over the last 3-4 years (about the same time the 'de facto' speed limit went from 120+ down to 110 -.
O.K., I'll put my neck on the block to a certain extent by admitting I have no 'figures' to substantiate the above but it is true.

Mind you our population growth is lagging behind that of the top of the North Island so our vehicle & population has not increased as much this may be reflected in the number of crashes up the 'other end'.

How do you measure a life saved in dollars? And how do you count/measure the hypothetical lives saved?

The data for Southern police district is here (see chart at the bottom of the page)
http://www.fastandsafe.org/site.aspx/Pages/Facts/RigidEnforcement/charts
and in the spreadsheet accessible from here:
http://www.fastandsafe.org/site.aspx/Pages/Facts/RigidEnforcement/data

In fact, your district has had a large increase in injuries, the biggest in NZ.

[scumdog]

The data for Southern police district is here (see chart at the bottom of the page)
http://www.fastandsafe.org/site.aspx/Pages/Facts/RigidEnforcement/charts
and in the spreadsheet accessible from here:
http://www.fastandsafe.org/site.aspx/Pages/Facts/RigidEnforcement/data

In fact, your district has had a large increase in injuries, the biggest in NZ.

Yup, REPORTED injuries as per policy now, earlier they were virtually only reported if a person was admitted to hospital.

And I stand by the statement and emphasise the word in it that you appear to have overlooked: SERIOUS.

[Blakamin]

The data for Southern police district is here (see chart at the bottom of the page)
http://www.fastandsafe.org/site.aspx/Pages/Facts/RigidEnforcement/charts
and in the spreadsheet accessible from here:
http://www.fastandsafe.org/site.aspx/Pages/Facts/RigidEnforcement/data

In fact, your district has had a large increase in injuries, the biggest in NZ.
just had a squiz at your links....



I think you need to get out more.......

[Alan Wilkinson]

I don't know Alan, maybe it was because they didn't want to waste any more time dealing with the scumbag partner of a burgular. Maybe they got called to another job. Who knows, it doesn't change the fact that you went raving and ranting off about the Police all based on what you read in a crappy Sunday Tabloid paper without making any attempt to research the matter first. In my books it really makes you look like an idiot with a massive agenda.

My opinion stands. If any civilian had done what those police did he would be serving a jail term. Those police carried out an "arrest" in order to put psychological pressure on a pregnant teenage mother giving them the opportunity to remove her baby to increase that pressure.

That you police call her a scumbag does not give you any rights to inflict punishments or sanctions on her. That is the function of the courts not the police. And by your account it was an abuse of process and a perversion of the intent of the law.

I have no agenda re the police, other than to try to ensure New Zealand does not become a police state in my lifetime, to ensure my tax dollars are not wasted or misused by them, and to correct any traffic-related misinformation campaigns by them.

Finally, it appears the only significant omission by the "crappy Tabloid" was the police belief that the individual was a burglar (which was anyway there to be inferred between the lines) and the only error was a misinterpretation of what the lawyer said about obstruction which also was not something I took at face value. So all your ranting about research not done is bollocks. You've added nothing significant to the story and not changed my opinion at all except to confirm that whenever additional powers are given to police they will almost certainly be abused sooner or later.

[Alan Wilkinson]

Yup, REPORTED injuries as per policy now, earlier they were virtually only reported if a person was admitted to hospital.

And I stand by the statement and emphasise the word in it that you appear to have overlooked: SERIOUS.
Well, I'm sorry I can't give you individual police district data on this one, but NZ-wide the ACC claim data confirms that the NZ-wide increase in injuries from 2001 is real and not just police reporting changes.

I guess the other point to note is that in the Southern district, fatalities have trended up against the previous trend. So it would be very surprising if serious injuries had not too.

[spudchucka]

You are truly amazing, Spud.Please don't try and blow hot air up my arse Alan, it won't change my mind about you.


I can't be bothered with your drivel any longer.Ahhh, right, I get it now, "amazing" huh, thats you being facetious, right?


But one last fact for you. There is indeed still a Ministry of Transport in Wellington. And it has just taken back responsibility for Transport Safety policy from LTSA which has been disbanded.
Oh, you mean "Ikiiki Whenua Aotearoa", why didn't you say so instead or implying our old snake friends in black and white were still lurking about somewhere?

Refer to post 128 if you don't like they way I'm replying to your posts. The last sentence is a clue.

And you haven't answered my question(s) in post 161 yet. How do you expect me to compare the roading infrastructures of New Zealand and Scandanavia (Denmark/Norway/Sweden) without that information?

Or do I have to apply for it under the official informations act?

[SPman]

..funny how it`s always the sports bikes you`ll find sitting in jams in the summer.
Fuck off - not in our neck of the woods, mate.

Whilst I can see where Spud is coming from and sympathise with what Alan is trying to get across,Im afraid when I read this thread now, all I can think of, is the theme song for "the Itchy and Scratchy Show" !!

[hobdar]

You have to prove your actions were safe in the circumstances. That doesn't mean that you think it is safe, it means that it is safe.

So who gets to define if it is safe or not....

Is not the traffic speed law set, so that vehicles who pass a warrant of fitness can safely travel according to the road code, without causing harm to ourselves or others. If we break the road rules regardless of the ectenuating circumstances then we should accept responsibility and suck up the fine or the deaths that we cause,

The road law (in my opinion) is set to define a safe environment for everyone no matter if your Peter Brock, Possum Bourne or Joe Bloggs down the road.....driving a crap bike an R1, a top of the line cage or a VW beetle....it has to be set with all the variables in mind...

The Possum Borne incident is a perfect example....You have two drivers who are very experienced rally drivers doing what they think is safe and they crash..simply because one did not follow the laws of the land...If he had done what was safe following the legal rode code Possum would potentially still be around...and so would a whole lot of people who die on our rode..

We have the rights to travel at the limits set by the rode code and the responsibility to do so...if we go outside those limits we deserve what we get....

[Alan Wilkinson]

Whilst I can see where Spud is coming from and sympathise with what Alan is trying to get across,Im afraid when I read this thread now, all I can think of, is the theme song for "the Itchy and Scratchy Show" !!

Yup, you're right. Time to let the cops tag team go play somewhere else and get out more like the man said.

The only unfinished business I've noticed is I wouldn't mind knowing exactly when the cops changed their reporting criteria for injuries and how it was rolled out. The Southern district numbers do look abnormal compared with everywhere else. Let me know if anyone finds out.

Cheers

[Alan Wilkinson]

So who gets to define if it is safe or not....


Durn it, just as I was signing off you ask a reasonable question!

The courts would judge it, expert witnesses would provide evidence. It would be an evolving story in the form of precedents as knowledge and processes changed.

At present it is formulated in secret by bureaucrats and is unchallengeable once adopted. That is unreasonable.

Being on the wrong side of the road on a blind corner would never qualify as safe, you can bet.

[T.I.E]

excellent post, like the site too.

how ever i am worried with the public view on police in new zealand and the ltsa. they are a law to their own. they also bend and break the law all the time. what we don't know about the law and or legisaltion, they will use to their advantage. if we smartened our selves up we would be keeping them honest.

that site is just that way to do so.

ignorance is bliss, as it is easier to walk past something you don't want to see.

don't get this wrong there are some honest real police out there, whom love their jobs and what they do. i just wish there were more of them.

[hobdar]

At present it is formulated in secret by bureaucrats and is unchallengeable once adopted. That is unreasonable.

Being on the wrong side of the road on a blind corner would never qualify as safe, you can bet.

You totally ignore the process that laws currently follow to become laws...

Go and study POLS101, the laws follow a democratic process people have the opportunity to have there say on what they think, and the committee of duly elected representatives then decide based on the information from both experts and non-experts on the particular subject.

If you want to change something you have the opportunity to start a referendum (though you will need to get enough people to sign it....) ....

become an MP and then you get to vote in government or of course you can ask ACT to put you on their party list...though i doubt they will get enough to put any list MP in to Government this year let alone a electoral seat(reflecting your constituents) assuming you get enough votes...or the part gets enough votes

Publishing the info on a website heck you can publish any thing you want....Hell i can publish that the Second World War never happened...people may believe me but will it be true.....honest or even based on fact...

Oh wait this sounds familiar

[Hitcher]

You totally ignore the process that laws currently follow to become laws...
There is truth in what you say regarding "process". However officials have considerable power in progressing an agenda. They are the folk charged with analysing public submissions. Ministers too have considerable influence -- one of the perks of being part of the coalition in control. Just look at all of the "reforms" that have taken place since the 1980s. A good example is the electoral reform process that got us stuck with MMP -- "Do you want to be killed by firing squad or lethal injection?"

[Alan Wilkinson]

You totally ignore the process that laws currently follow to become laws...


We're not talking about laws here (re safety standards), we're talking about regulations which have nothing to do with Parliament. Bureaucratic processes create them and Ministers sign them off. It's all within the government, not Parliament.

[Indo]

My opinion stands. If any civilian had done what those police did he would be serving a jail term.

Err yes Alan, however thats quite a ridiculous statement to make, in this country we give Police special powers to arrest and detain people. I would love it if you could point out to me exactly how the Police broke the law in this case.


Those police carried out an "arrest" in order to put psychological pressure on a pregnant teenage mother giving them the opportunity to remove her baby to increase that pressure.

Alan, if you were the Police in this instance what exactly would you do? Would you allow the partner of a criminal to break the law simply because taking action against her would offend your sense of gallantry?

It seems to be even reading this biased article that the Police did everything in their power to persuade her to OBEY the law so they didn't have to arrest her.

Having been burgled before i want the Police to use every power they have to catch these peices of shit and if the partner of a burgular wants to thumb her nose at the law and society then i don't have any sympathy when she gets arrested as a consequence.


That you police call her a scumbag does not give you any rights to inflict punishments or sanctions on her. That is the function of the courts not the police.

Im kinda lost at the point you are making here, that shes a scumbag (just the opinion i have of burgulars in general) is beside the point. The Police have the right to arrest people who break the law and it is the function of the Police not the courts in this country to arrest people.


And by your account it was an abuse of process and a perversion of the intent of the law.

By my account? i wasn't there and neither were you Alan. The only account we have is that of a burgular and a tabloid paper. The difference is that unlike you I chose not to take a burgulars claims in a tabloid at face value. The fact that the article is so riddled with obvious inaccuracies makes me wonder if you even read it before posting it on your site. However even basing my opinion solely off the burglars account of events I can see that she was being delibrately obstructive to protect another criminal and was arrested as a result. Something which I and i think alot of the law abiding public don't have a problem with.


I have no agenda re the police.....
that whenever additional powers are given to police they will almost certainly be abused sooner or later.

And given that you have no 'agenda' against the Police Alan, why then would you post a tabloid article full of inaccurices aimed solely at defaming the Police on your web site?

The fact is you took the account of a burgular in an article you read in a crappy tabloid not known for journalistic integrity as gospel. You brought the story hook line and sinker as soon as you saw the headline 'draconian' Police, that to me makes any claims you have of being 'unbiased' and factual as simple farce. Really who are you trying to kid?

[Lou Girardin]

No those terrible revenue gathering Police were using the law and entirely legal means to attempt to catch a burglar.



He's completely incorrect, Obstruction is almost entirely a matter dealt with by arrest. Really Allan don't you even bother to research at all before jumping to conclusions and slandering Police all based on what you read in a Sunday Tabloid?

An 'alleged' burglar, if I'm not mistaken.
It also seems the the guiding principle here is "the end justifies the means" (terrorising a Mother into confession), not terribly encouraging for notions of civil rights really.
But then the war cry of fascists everywhere is "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" isn't it?

[scumdog]

I think you missed the point although it was quite simple. Drivers don't need speed limits to control their speeds safely. They do it already without endangering others. Moreover, almost all of them are good at it.

Eh? eh? Have you lost you marbles? A hell of a lot of drivers would be out of their depth driving an electric dogem at a side-show!

So the guy I got cruising through town at 99kph was "quite good at it" and "controls his speed safely"???????? :shake:

[idb]

The real point is that I should be able to drive at whatever speed I want because I am oozing common sense and ability.
I don't want anyone else to have the same freedom on the same roads as me though cos I don't trust them.
There - I've said it!
Whaaaaat?! :spudwhat:

[SPman]

....Is not the traffic speed law set, so that vehicles who pass a warrant of fitness can safely travel according to the road code, without causing harm to ourselves or others.
:laugh: :laugh: Whatever gave you that idea?

If we break the road rules regardless of the ectenuating circumstances then we should accept responsibility and suck up the fine or the deaths that we cause,
And who is arguing against that. If you fuck up and cause an accident, regardless of whether you are inside or outside the law - it is your responsibility - no question about that! In fact its more about personal responsibilty. To often now the excuse is - I wasnt breaking the speed limit - I must have been safe - its someone elses fault because there isnt a law about it..its the roads fault! (always a favourite with the media).blah blah blah. People want a nice soft cosy law or regulation, so they can shirk their responsibilities and put the blame on someone or something else!


The road law (in my opinion) is set to define a safe environment for everyone no matter if your Peter Brock, Possum Bourne or Joe Bloggs down the road.....driving a crap bike an R1, a top of the line cage or a VW beetle....it has to be set with all the variables in mind..
I agree. Set a medium standard that tries to accommadate everybody and their variables. Its not so much the setting of regulations, its the zealousness with which they are enforced to the letter in widely differing situations that becomes the problem. One size does not fit all and never will.The differing vehicle dynamics between cars, bikes and trucks seldom seem to be taken into account by the regulators. 100 k down a packed single lane highway in the rain is different to 130k down a deserted wide dry well surfaced highway.Yet people will sit at 100 k in the rain with a 1/2 second gap and because the road code says they are legal, they think they are safe! Take a road code as a starting point, by all means,but for gods sake try and instill in ALL drivers, some sort of personal responsibilty for their actions and attitudes, not swaddle them in the false belief, that if they travel everywhere, in any conditions at 50 / 100k, they must be safe drivers, because they arent speeding.

We have the rights to travel at the limits set by the rode code and the responsibility to do so...if we go outside those limits we deserve what we get.... Yes, but!.......enforcement on dangerous, erratic, stupidity on the road with PROPER education and training for drivers and their attitudes is still the best way to go.
In the UK, one of the Constabularies, reduced the speed limit of a popular byway, with no previous history of being a black spot, from 60 to 30mph, then lined it with speed cameras - all as a safety measure, of course. Accidents increased 57% within 6 weeks!
NSW authorities, in an effort to discourage new motorcycle riders, set up a quite stiff training regime to get a bike licence. New riders in NSW have had a quite dramatic drop in injury accidents and deaths, going against the trends in other states.
.........................
So why should the rules be set at the lowest common denominator and everyone dumbed down to them. Set them higher and if you dont measure up....tough. And not just an ability to follow rules, either! Another example of everyone can do everything...its our right...even if we're incapable....no losers...no one can perform better than he who will come last!
I could just see that happening in aviation.....eh Marty?!

[Alan Wilkinson]

Indo, the police should have done exactly what they would have done had the car been registered regarding the "burglar" and exactly what they would have done regarding the registration matter had it been any other mother and her child.

Parliament has never authorised police to arrest people who refuse to give information regarding burglars. God knows why they authorised police to arrest passengers who decline to give information regarding unregistered car owners, but this is typical of the continual erosion of civil liberties that the late unlamented LTSA caused.

You say you don't have any direct knowledge of the woman you have called a scumbag, nor about the incident. You have actually failed to point to any errors in the article at all, except the misreporting of one of the lawyers. And since you have made a big obnoxious thing about that and much else - I asked you about it precisely because I doubted it was accurately reported. And that makes no difference to my opinion on that incident.

As with Spud, after more than sufficient exposure, I have little interest in your opinions.

[spudchucka]

An 'alleged' burglar, if I'm not mistaken.
It also seems the the guiding principle here is "the end justifies the means" (terrorising a Mother into confession), not terribly encouraging for notions of civil rights really.
But then the war cry of fascists everywhere is "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" isn't it?
Even the ones caught red handed are "alleged" burglars and none of them give a stuff about the civil rights or the property rights of the poor shmucks they steal from.

[Alan Wilkinson]

Eh? eh? Have you lost you marbles? A hell of a lot of drivers would be out of their depth driving an electric dogem at a side-show!

So the guy I got cruising through town at 99kph was "quite good at it" and "controls his speed safely"???????? :shake:

What a pleasure to talk to a policeman - the usual gross dose of abuse followed by misrepresentation.

My reference was to driving on country roads. I have no problem with keeping lunatics off the roads. It is one of the most essential safety measures. It has almost NOTHING to do with speed limits for sane and competent drivers.

[spudchucka]

As with Spud, after more than sufficient exposure, I have little interest in your opinions.
Answer my questions in post 161 and I'll play nice again, promise.

[spudchucka]

What a pleasure to talk to a policeman - the usual gross dose of abuse followed by misrepresentation.
Go read your own web site, its full of abuse and gross misrepresentation, I've just been trying to make you feel at home.

[Waylander]

What a pleasure to talk to a policeman - the usual gross dose of abuse followed by misrepresentation.

My reference was to driving on country roads. I have no problem with keeping lunatics off the roads. It is one of the most essential safety measures. It has almost NOTHING to do with speed limits for sane and competent drivers.
And who shall judge the lunatic from the sane person?? As far as I m concerned all other drivers are lunatics and should be watched out for and I drive/ride acordingly. I have even been known to drive like a lunatic on occansion but that doesnt make me a bad driver and should be baned from the road.

[Blakamin]

wow... this shit is still going............ :sleep:

[spudchucka]

And who shall judge the lunatic from the sane person??
Thats a very good reason why Alan's ideas won't work. Its also an obvious reason why we have a speed limit that is predominantly safe for most people in most situations. Once police get the Stupidometers installed there might be some hope.

[Alan Wilkinson]

And who shall judge the lunatic from the sane person??

The courts on the initiative of the police, just as in all other cases - aided by appropriate professionals. But we need to do more to stop mentally ill, suicidal and maniacal people getting onto our roads as well. I'd like to see much less money wasted on "speed kills" campaigns and much more spent on that.

[scumdog]

The courts on the initiative of the police, just as in all other cases - aided by appropriate professionals. But we need to do more to stop mentally ill, suicidal and maniacal people getting onto our roads as well.

So when are you going to hand in your licence? :spudwhat: :banana:

[Blakamin]

The courts on the initiative of the police, just as in all other cases - aided by appropriate professionals. But we need to do more to stop mentally ill, suicidal and maniacal people getting onto our roads as well. I'd like to see much less money wasted on "speed kills" campaigns and much more spent on that.
Coz the courts have soooo much spare time................ :tugger:

[speedpro]

I'm thinking of starting another thread seeing as this one is going so well. I actually think Spud and Alan might have more in common than you might expect. Silly eh? :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah:

[spudchucka]

The courts on the initiative of the police, just as in all other cases - aided by appropriate professionals. But we need to do more to stop mentally ill, suicidal and maniacal people getting onto our roads as well. I'd like to see much less money wasted on "speed kills" campaigns and much more spent on that.
The Courts are going to be very busy places under your new regime.

Do you think that preventing mentally ill and suicidal people from obtaining a drivers licence even if they pass all the criteria for holding one would possibly be typical of the continual erosion of civil liberties that the late unlamented LTSA caused. Doesn't sound terribly encouraging for notions of civil rights really.

Actually I'm in total agreement that these people should be quite restricted as road users. But I find it interesting that you actively campaign for civil rights on an issue you feel strongly about but are willing to prejudice the same civil liberties against certain minority groups.

[spudchucka]

I actually think Spud and Alan might have more in common than you might expect.
Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooo! :angry2: :angry2: :angry2:

[marty]

Parliament has never authorised police to arrest people who refuse to give information regarding burglars. God knows why they authorised police to arrest passengers who decline to give information regarding unregistered car owners, but this is typical of the continual erosion of civil liberties that the late unlamented LTSA caused.



there's always S66 of the Crimes Act 1961 i guess - i would have used it. or even S317A and it's amendments - great stuff!

[marty]

God knows why they authorised police to arrest passengers who decline to give information regarding unregistered car owners, but this is typical of the continual erosion of civil liberties that the late unlamented LTSA caused.

.

hey spud - can you remind me where this power is found?

[spudchucka]

hey spud - can you remind me where this power is found?
Well, I can only assume he is talking about section 113(2)(a) of the Land Transport Act 1998.


113.Enforcement officers may enforce transport legislation—

(1)An enforcement officer in uniform or in possession of a warrant or other evidence of his or her authority as an enforcement officer may enforce the provisions of—

(a)The Transport Act 1962, the Local Government Act 1974, [the Local Government Act 2002,] the Road User Charges Act 1977, the Transport (Vehicle and Driver Registration and Licensing) Act 1986, the Transport Services Licensing Act 1989, the Transit New Zealand Act 1989, the Railway Safety and Corridor Management Act 1992, [the Land Transport Management Act 2003,] and this Act:

(b)Regulations and rules and bylaws in force under any Acts mentioned in paragraph (a).

(2)Without limiting any other powers conferred on an enforcement officer, an enforcement officer, in enforcing any provisions referred to in subsection (1), may at any time—

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

The penalty for which is found in section 52 of the same Act.


52.Contravening notices, requirements, etc, given or imposed by enforcement officers—

(1)A person commits an offence if the person—

(a)Removes, obscures, or renders indistinguishable a notice affixed to a vehicle under section 115, unless new evidence of vehicle inspection has been obtained for the vehicle [or (if the notice was given under section 96(1B)) the direction requiring the vehicle not to be driven on a road has been cancelled under section 102(3)(b) or section 110(3)(a)(ii)]; or

(b)Drives a vehicle to which a notice under section 115 applies (other than when driving in compliance with a condition imposed under subsection (4) or subsection (5) of that section [or under section 96(1D)]) before new evidence of vehicle inspection has been obtained for, and is displayed on, the vehicle; or

(c)Fails or refuses to comply with any lawful requirement, direction, notice, request, or prohibition given to or imposed on him or her under this Act by an enforcement officer or a dangerous goods enforcement officer; or

(d)Whether or not he or she is the person to whom the direction was given, knowingly drives a heavy motor vehicle on a road in breach of a direction given by an enforcement officer under section 128.

(2)The maximum penalty on conviction for an offence against subsection (1) is a fine not exceeding $10,000.

Doesn't say anything about a power to arrest as far as I can tell.

[bluninja]

Seems to me people can't see the wood for the trees on both sides of the forest. There appears to be several issues here:-

1) What is the best way to manage road use in NZ?
2) Is the money currently spent on road safety policies delivering?

Unless someone is willing to stand up and create a statement of intent of how they believe the road system should be used, and then create policies aligned to that statement of intent....and most importantly generate sufficient support to implement them, nothing will change (much).

It appears that Alan's site really concentrates on item 2, but I don't see any positive and practical solutions proposed; though he has made an excellent attempt at providing an opposing view to LTSA information. A part of me says 'So what?'. Even if the information is totally made up as an after the fact justification, what justification is there to change the system? and to what?

The smokescreen and attacks on policing methods etc...hey we've already got lots of threads on here doing that. Seems a weak way to go about getting change by attaking the enforcers of the policy, rather than the policy makers.

So Alan a few questions :-
1) If you were to choose only 3 measures to improve road safety what would they be?
2) What 3 policies would you propose to improve the use of NZs roading infrastructure to the beneift of the majority of Kiwis?

[Alan Wilkinson]

1) If you were to choose only 3 measures to improve road safety what would they be?
2) What 3 policies would you propose to improve the use of NZs roading infrastructure to the beneift of the majority of Kiwis?

Sorry, out the door now for a couple of days offline probably. There's a bit here but I've been working on other stuff not yet on the website:

http://www.fastandsafe.org/site.aspx/Pages/wishList

Also here:

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

[hobdar]

Here is a question, for both sides of this argument.....

If we all drove mechanically sound cars i.e. up to correct WOF standard. (as required by the road code)

and to the road code (which is the speed limit or as conditions determine i.e. its wet you slow down)

Do you think that we would have a nil death toll?

Now putting Alans example given many posts back ....

If we drove at a speed that we ourselves determine is safe (correct me if i am wrong in this) on the open road (and residential??) would this contribute to the current death toll or decrease it?


Your thoughts? :brick:

[bluninja]

Here is a question, for both sides of this argument.....

If we all drove mechanically sound cars i.e. up to correct WOF standard. (as required by the road code)

and to the road code (which is the speed limit or as conditions determine i.e. its wet you slow down)

Do you think that we would have a nil death toll?:

No! I guess to the road code means no driving under the influence of drugs/alcohol, or when medically unfit (sleep deprived included). But not every one is attentive all the time, so there will still be human error. In addition there will be (rare) sudden mechanical breakdown, and accidents caused by medical emergency (eg sudden heart attack).

This also doesn't take into account those with good reason to drive recklessly, such as car thieves, and burglars being chased who may also cause fatal accidents.


Now putting Alans example given many posts back ....

If we drove at a speed that we ourselves determine is safe (correct me if i am wrong in this) on the open road (and residential??) would this contribute to the current death toll or decrease it?


Your thoughts? :brick:

I think Alan, hasn't made this point very clear. There is a concept of safe speed, that is clearly definable, rather than subjective.

The 'Safe Speed Rule' (http://www.safespeed.org.uk/background.html) taken from www.safespeed.org.uk

'Always ensure that you can stop comfortably, on your own side of the road, within the distance that you know to be clear.'

If you click on the link it will give you a much better explanation of it.

On that basis I would opine that if all people adopted the safe speed rule, the road toll would decrease. If they drive at whatever speed they 'feel' is safe without refernce to visibility, hazards and stopping distances then it will go up.

BTW the 'Daft Challenge' (not recommended) try and drive AT the posted speed limit at ALL times and see how long before you crash and possibly kill yourself. Whoops I forgot it's a maximum limit and not a target :cool:

[Waylander]

Originally posted by bluninja
BTW the 'Daft Challenge' (not recommended) try and drive AT the posted speed limit at ALL times and see how long before you crash and possibly kill yourself. Whoops I forgot it's a maximum limit and not a target :cool:

Was just wondering about this cause in the states the police can pull you over and give you a ticket for driving to slow. Not sure if its the same here, maybe spudchuka or one of the other resident police officers could answere this for me. If they can then the maximum limit is a target or atleast the general area within a certain number of kph would be the target.

[bluninja]

There's generally no minimum speed limit, unless posted. However I'm sure that if you drove so slowly as to be a hazard to other traffic then you may get pulled for something similar to undue care and attention.

I could be wrong, but if I am I wonder that tractors aren't fire breathing monsters to keep up on normal roads.....and can you imagine how quick a funeral cortege would go :spudwhat: I'd hate to be a cyclist trying to maintain the minimum speed limit, or a horse rider with a knackered horse from keeping the speed up. :LOL:

[Mongoose]

I think Alan, hasn't made this point very clear. There is a concept of safe speed, that is clearly definable, rather than subjective.
:


I rather suspect Alan has a lot of theory and that he would like to consider that he fits the bill for an extremely good driver, as many who have had accidents consider themselves to.
One variable that is NOT taken into any of his work is the human factor, very hard to factor into any equation.
Long may people like Alan and Brian continue at the extremes of our life(the further away the better sort of extreme) :shake:

[Hitcher]

Highly entertaining. The other "Scottish" thread...

[Mongoose]

Highly entertaining. The other "Scottish" thread...

Almost as repetative in places :yeah:

[Paul in NZ]

Almost as repetative in places :yeah:

It has other scarily similar features as well...

Basically both threads boil down to - I'm clever and can interpret the information for all you less clever / able people because - well I'm clever.... and you are not... We are all guilty of that sin... Pride...

any who... Heres a thought...

The kiwi and aussie attitude to life is based (IMHO - with NO research to back it up) on the recent pioneering past of our root stock. We are only a generation or 2 from people that were happy to gamble everything on a very big un known far across the seas and beyond all hope of rescue. Thus we Kiwis still like to see whats over the horizon, and the faster we can do it, the better. Risk takers and madmen the lot of us. Every one here is a relatively recent immigrant by global standards (yes everyone). We share this (to a certain extent) with the North Americans.

Give a kiwi a car and he wants to see how fast it can go...

Problem is, our island is, by a fortunate accident of geography, is blessed with some gnarly terrain (which is what we love) to build roads over. We need to be very very careful to kurb our inate desire to push the boundaries of speed because of our limited roads.

So, lets build bigger better faster more modern roads so Alan and his mates can tear about at a speed that satisifies their need for speed and their desire to satify their rights... fair enough, lets do that to shw1....

But would the motorcycle community be happy with alans roading plans....

Piss off... They are straightening them out too bloody much as it is... I LIKE windy difficult roads. If trucks can't use them effectively then get rid of the dirty poxy things and use the railways like Stevenson intended...

Sorry, I'll put up with the HP and 100kph if the trade off is exciting curves and death defing hair pins where I can feel like Rossi at 85kph...

Just a thought.. Could be wrong... probably am...

[Hitcher]

Let's start a new lobby group:

The Society for the Protection of the Tortuously Windy Road (SPoTWiR)...

[vifferman]

Just a thought.. Could be wrong... probably am...
Nope - it's a good thought, and I reckon you're right.
Mind you, that's because it's exactly what I believe too.:confused:

[loosebruce]

Let's start a new lobby group:

The Society for the Protection of the Tortuously Windy Road (SPoTWiR)...

Amen to that HItcher, it saddens me riding up and down the country, seeing big arse sighs saying, "such and such straightening (sp)", they best keep away from the coromandel.
Kaitoke hill looks like it'll be a bloody bore to ride over, next thing ys know they'll put a dead staright tunnel under the rima's, Nooooooooooooooo :ar15:

[Lou Girardin]

Even the ones caught red handed are "alleged" burglars and none of them give a stuff about the civil rights or the property rights of the poor shmucks they steal from.

So society should stoop to their level. That will make us..............?

[Biff]

Let's start a new lobby group:

The Society for the Protection of the Tortuously Windy Road (SPoTWiR)...

How about the Association of Realistic Speed Enhancements ?
or the Wellington Association of Neo Kiwis Enraged by Rural Speeding ?

...work out the abbreviations yourselves :niceone:

[Lou Girardin]

I rather suspect Alan has a lot of theory and that he would like to consider that he fits the bill for an extremely good driver, as many who have had accidents consider themselves to.


That's one hell of an assumption or do you know something about Alans accident record that we don't?

[Paul in NZ]

That's one hell of an assumption or do you know something about Alans accident record that we don't?

No, it's based on a logorithmic sliding scale interpretation so as to balance against the variation of belief amoungst KiwiBikers and adjusted for the annual continental drift of the techtonic plate that his computer sits on.

This is considered essential due to the variation in gravitational pull in specific locations along the Y axis of the sinusoidal wave graph ossillygraph that the figures were obtained from (commonly called a spirit board)..

We could be more accurate but the computer was stolen by a burgler just as it finished it's final run. the Police did ask his partner where he was but apparently it wasn't him, I was with him all night and you can't prove a thing you bastards and screw calling my lawyer you pigs, I'm calling my publicist...

Paul N

[Biff]

No, it's based on a logorithmic sliding scale interpretation so as to balance against the variation of belief amoungst KiwiBikers and adjusted for the annual continental drift of the techtonic plate that his computer sits on.

This is considered essential due to the variation in gravitational pull in specific locations along the Y axis of the sinusoidal wave graph ossillygraph that the figures were obtained from (commonly called a spirit board)..

We could be more accurate but the computer was stolen by a burgler just as it finished it's final run. the Police did ask his partner where he was but apparently it wasn't him, I was with him all night and you can't prove a thing you bastards and screw calling my lawyer you pigs, I'm calling my publicist...

Paul N





BBB






















Bullshit Baffles Brains

[Hitcher]

Amen to that HItcher, it saddens me riding up and down the country, seeing big arse sighs saying, "such and such straightening (sp)", they best keep away from the coromandel.
Kaitoke hill looks like it'll be a bloody bore to ride over, next thing ys know they'll put a dead staright tunnel under the rima's, Nooooooooooooooo
"Nooooooooooooooo" indeed! Save the Kaitokes!

There's a corner that was allegedly been "straightened" a couple of years ago at the top of the hill just south of Turakina at a cost of a squillion or so dollars. But there is still a corner there and it's no different to the one it replaced. And then there's the "passing lane" just north of Bulls, also on SH3.

And then again, it has taken the "planners" 40-odd years to figure out that a level crossing at McKays isn't that clever. But instead of building a culvert, they're moving half of the Wellington region to build it.

Go figure...

[scumdog]

What a pleasure to talk to a policeman - the usual gross dose of abuse followed by misrepresentation.

My reference was to driving on country roads. I have no problem with keeping lunatics off the roads. It is one of the most essential safety measures. It has almost NOTHING to do with speed limits for sane and competent drivers.

I have not abused you let alone grossly abused you, I've merely , I've just questioned your logic. :confused:

So now it's O.K. to speed on COUNTRY roads but not built up areas? pray tell me why you make the distinction.

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

Glad to make it a "pleasure" anyway. :niceone:

[marty]

Well, I can only assume he is talking about section 113(2)(a) of the Land Transport Act 1998.



The penalty for which is found in section 52 of the same Act.



Doesn't say anything about a power to arrest as far as I can tell.

my point exactly

[spudchucka]

So society should stoop to their level. That will make us..............?
Society should do everything in its power to stop the harmful activities of this minority group, (the criminal fraternity), that has no regard for any laws or socially accepted norms.

Civil libertarians who don't like it should try getting burgled, assaulted, robbed, raped, maimed by a drunk driver or otherwise victimised at least a couple of times and then see if they feel the same.

[spudchucka]

Was just wondering about this cause in the states the police can pull you over and give you a ticket for driving to slow. Not sure if its the same here, maybe spudchuka or one of the other resident police officers could answere this for me. If they can then the maximum limit is a target or atleast the general area within a certain number of kph would be the target.
There isn't a minimum speed limit that drivers must maintain. However drivers who drive very slowly and hinder other traffic without making any attempt to allow people to pass can be charged with inconsiderate driving. This comes under the same section as Careless Driving and carries the same penalty.

[spudchucka]

my point exactly
I knew it would be. Clearly shows he isn't the expert he'd like people to think he is.

[bluninja]

Society should do everything in its power to stop the harmful activities of this minority group, (the criminal fraternity), that has no regard for any laws or socially accepted norms.

Civil libertarians who don't like it should try getting burgled, assaulted, robbed, raped, maimed by a drunk driver or otherwise victimised at least a couple of times and then see if they feel the same.

Her's your quote amended......

The USA should do everything in its power to stop the harmful activities of this minority group, (the terrorist fraternity), that has no regard for any laws or socially accepted norms.

Your justification appears pretty similar to America's 'war on terror', and, IMHO your approach creates a police force that 'catches more criminals than it employs'.

You ever read 200AD? 'The crime is life...the sentence is death'...after all it's only the living that commit crimes, and everyone will commit crime at some time, so why not top the lot and hey presto! no crime.



(PT) Just in case you tedious ill informed lot didn't work that one out :shake:

[spudchucka]

Her's your quote amended......

The USA should do everything in its power to stop the harmful activities of this minority group, (the terrorist fraternity), that has no regard for any laws or socially accepted norms.

Your justification appears pretty similar to America's 'war on terror', and, IMHO your approach creates a police force that 'catches more criminals than it employs'.

You ever read 200AD? 'The crime is life...the sentence is death'...after all it's only the living that commit crimes, and everyone will commit crime at some time, so why not top the lot and hey presto! no crime.



(PT) Just in case you tedious ill informed lot didn't work that one out :shake:

In the context of the posts prior to mine that you have so innapropriately amended, I have no idea where you are coming from.

No body has suggested topping anybody, maybe you've been spending too long in the legalise herb thread?? :spudwhat:



No those terrible revenue gathering Police were using the law and entirely legal means to attempt to catch a burglar.

He's completely incorrect, Obstruction is almost entirely a matter dealt with by arrest. Really Allan don't you even bother to research at all before jumping to conclusions and slandering Police all based on what you read in a Sunday Tabloid?


An 'alleged' burglar, if I'm not mistaken.
It also seems the the guiding principle here is "the end justifies the means" (terrorising a Mother into confession), not terribly encouraging for notions of civil rights really.
But then the war cry of fascists everywhere is "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" isn't it?



Even the ones caught red handed are "alleged" burglars and none of them give a stuff about the civil rights or the property rights of the poor shmucks they steal from.


So society should stoop to their level. That will make us..............?


Society should do everything in its power to stop the harmful activities of this minority group, (the criminal fraternity), that has no regard for any laws or socially accepted norms.

Civil libertarians who don't like it should try getting burgled, assaulted, robbed, raped, maimed by a drunk driver or otherwise victimised at least a couple of times and then see if they feel the same.

[bluninja]

In the context of the posts prior to mine that you have so innapropriately amended, I have no idea where you are coming from.

No body has suggested topping anybody, maybe you've been spending too long in the legalise herb thread?? :spudwhat:

You may consider it innapropriate, but I see a definite parallel. One state saying that anything goes to protect it's people; and the other saying that anything the criminal does can be done to catch them. Or have I misunderstood that? BTW notice I did leave your quote intact and put my version underneath.

As for the other stuff......it's just a small leap of stupidity to suggest that living people commit crime, so if we remove them then the crime stops...that was a premise for a fictional character called Judge Death in the 200AD comic.

Oh and it was all a Piss Take. Guess someone must have thrown a spud back and hit you on the head :brick:

[spudchucka]

You may consider it innapropriate, but I see a definite parallel. One state saying that anything goes to protect it's people; and the other saying that anything the criminal does can be done to catch them. Or have I misunderstood that? BTW notice I did leave your quote intact and put my version underneath.

As for the other stuff......it's just a small leap of stupidity to suggest that living people commit crime, so if we remove them then the crime stops...that was a premise for a fictional character called Judge Death in the 200AD comic.

Oh and it was all a Piss Take. Guess someone must have thrown a spud back and hit you on the head :brick:
I've been hit on the head plenty of times but not by a spud.

I had a feeling you piss taking and thats why I made the comment about spending too much time in the herb thread.

As for your analogy with the USA and the war on terror, I can't see how invading another country and justifying it with dodgy intel can be compared to cops doing all they legally can to bring a criminal before the courts.

And I've never seen a Judge Dred comic book to have any idea of what that other stuff could have been about.

[bluninja]

I had a feeling you piss taking and thats why I made the comment about spending too much time in the herb thread.



Duh!. I guess putting

(PT) Just in case you tedious ill informed lot didn't work that one out

at the bottom was a bit too obvious :2thumbsup

As for the USA analogy. I guess I was thinking more about ignoring (or bypassing) the Geneva convention with the prisoners held at Guantanemo Bay.

[Clockwork]

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

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

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

[Clockwork]

I also consider myself to be something of a civil libertarian. To be honest I don't give too much consideration to the right of criminals (just the basics you understand :ar15: ) but I'm very strong on the idea of innocent until proven guilty and I'm not sure I approve of an "anything goes" approach to getting a conviction.

At extremes of this debate I could live in fear of criminals or I could live in fear of the Police. I'd like to sit somewhere in the middle. Which is why I think its important that the Police don't have a completey free hand. :apint:

[scumdog]

. Which is why I think its important that the Police don't have a completey free hand. :apint:

But criminals do??? - and they seem to a lot of the time, and when things DO go wrong for them it is still the tax-payer who forks out the money to make sure they get a "fair trial" and "reasonable living" when sent to prison.
And when was the last time any honest-joe got a $40,000 debt wiped in exchange for a couple of hundred hours 'community work'? Lucky old criminals!

Best the criminals live in fear though eh?

[Holy Roller]

And I've never seen a Judge Dred comic book.
Mate you have just not lived :shake:

[Clockwork]

But criminals do??? - and they seem to a lot of the time, and when things DO go wrong for them it is still the tax-payer who forks out the money to make sure they get a "fair trial" and "reasonable living" when sent to prison.
And when was the last time any honest-joe got a $40,000 debt wiped in exchange for a couple of hundred hours 'community work'? Lucky old criminals!

Best the criminals live in fear though eh?

Its a shit deal, I agree but I feel these processes are in place to protect the innocent (such as me :2thumbsup ) and I can't think of a better way. Its kind of like the DPB debate. I don't want to see people using it as a lifestyle but without it the kids would suffer, and it's not their fault.
R

[Paul in NZ]

But criminals do??? - and they seem to a lot of the time, and when things DO go wrong for them it is still the tax-payer who forks out the money to make sure they get a "fair trial" and "reasonable living" when sent to prison.
And when was the last time any honest-joe got a $40,000 debt wiped in exchange for a couple of hundred hours 'community work'? Lucky old criminals!

Best the criminals live in fear though eh?

I think most tax payers are prepared to pay a bit more for a tough but fair police force. Most people even accept that the odds are in the favour of the criminal partly due to the 'Innocent until proven guilty' ideal. To wander any farthur to the right in terms of crime prevention is too much for a healthy society to handle. The crims know this and exploit it but that's life...

Policemen and women are human beings and they will be subject to exactly the same failings we all have in similar proportions. My feeling is that we need more Police, better trained and equiped and focussing a lot more on the small and petty crimes. Traffic enforcement is required but it's the burglery, graffiti, vandalisim, abuse and petty thuggery where a lot of the problems start.

I have not thought this through as a proper idea, it's just a feeling I have.

Paul N

[spudchucka]

Duh!. I guess putting

(PT) Just in case you tedious ill informed lot didn't work that one out

at the bottom was a bit too obvious :2thumbsup

As for the USA analogy. I guess I was thinking more about ignoring (or bypassing) the Geneva convention with the prisoners held at Guantanemo Bay.
Sorry but I thought (PT) was indicating the poster was a prize twat.

(PT)!

[bluninja]

Oh! Yer got me :cool: though most people assume I'm a prize twat. After all I left NZ :confused:

[spudchucka]

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

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

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

Alan made a comment about how wrong it was for police to have a power to arrest passengers in a motor vehicle if the fail or refuse to give the name and detail of the driver of that vehicle.

The point Marty and I were making is that the police do not have any such power to arrest people for that offence. It is dealt with by summons only.

The point being that Alan clearly doesn't know his legislation as well as he would like you all to think he does.

The section quoted compels people to give whatever details are known to them as to the identity of the driver. However if that person was subsequently arrested on any charge then they have the right under section 23(4)(a) to refrain from making any statement. That person therefore can not be compeled to give the details prescribed in section 113(2)(a) of the LTA 1998 as to force them to make a statement would be in breach of their section 23 rights.

I hope that makes it clearer.

[Lou Girardin]

Society should do everything in its power to stop the harmful activities of this minority group, (the criminal fraternity), that has no regard for any laws or socially accepted norms.


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

[Lou Girardin]

But criminals do??? - and they seem to a lot of the time, and when things DO go wrong for them it is still the tax-payer who forks out the money to make sure they get a "fair trial" and "reasonable living" when sent to prison.
And when was the last time any honest-joe got a $40,000 debt wiped in exchange for a couple of hundred hours 'community work'? Lucky old criminals!

Best the criminals live in fear though eh?

This is either law or public policy. It's like speeding laws Scumdog. Just obey them, don't dare complain.

[bluninja]

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

What fallacious crap! So people that lose their jobs turn to a life of crime huh? You obviously don't delve much into cause and effect with regard to crime. Oh sorry I missed the fine point.....oh! oh! I've got it now. The unemployed set up P labs and drug rings to replace their income. This created a whole load of addicts that then turned to crime to fund their addiction.

Shows how easy it is to take a thread starting challenging the information we currently have regarding speed and accident rates is accurate, and then hijack it to an anti police thread. Maybe the police should be using these rules from another book???

Ezra 7:26 And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment.

Oops did I just hijack this thread?? :shake:

[Clockwork]

I hope that makes it clearer.

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

It was Indo in thread #102 that first claimed she was arrested legally....


The girlfriend obviously did not want the Police to locate her boyfriend the criminal so refused to provide any details, she then instructed her sister to also not provide any details. The girlfriend was then warned and continued to break the law by protecting her criminal boyfriend. She was then arrested by the Police who were not really interested in arresting her but had no choice as she effectively forced them too. .

[scumdog]

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

It was Indo in thread #102 that first claimed she was arrested legally....



Maybe it was for 'obstruction' after all she was obstructing the officer by directing her sister NOT to tell him anything. (and as is often the case she likely would have been shreiking her head off to drown out whatever was being said by the officer)..

My 2 cents worth.