Up the speed limit

[130wide]

With all the cops out collecting revenue from anyone riding/driving over 105ks I have been sitting on bewteen 105-110ks on the main roads.
Just did 600ks last Sunday where I was lossing concentration when riding on the open road due to the low speed, as soon as I hit the back roads and lifted my speed by 30ks+ I was sweet.
The only problem with riding back roads all the time is dodging the cattle, farmers, cow shit and some times riders coming the other way.
The only other way I see is to ride at a speed on the open road where my concentration is up and to keep doing runners from the cops. Either or it's all good fun.

[Lou Girardin]

In Italy, they've just raised the motorway limit to 150km/h, was 130. Their equivalent of the MOT said that scientific studies showed that higher speed was safer, as it kept drivers alert.
Now, where can we hire scientists like that. Instead of the Victorian prats they use now.
Lou

[merv]

Yeah I don't understand all this concentration on speed let alone worrying about improving roads too much. How long before we are all living sterile lives cruising on Intertstate type highways flat as a pancake with bugger-all curves in a vehcile controlled by sateliite or something. On another thread it was mentioned about an e-prom to make your bike go like Rossi is riding it, but damn the bureaucrats will make sure the e-prom makes it go like your granny is riding it. In Pomgokia they already have GPS tracking in rental cars and are experimenting with fining people based on that technology picking up speeding. What then, for everyone to get their thrills, do they then take on even more dangerous sports to keep the ACC costs up. I've said before we are all going to miss Kaitoke hill and damn how long before they bulldoze the Rimutakas?

[Kiwi]

I go never over 100 km/h – ask bikerboy, he know it exactly

:D

see ya

Kiwi

max 105

[SPman]

Originally posted by Kiwi
I go never over 100 km/h – ask bikerboy, he know it exactly

:D

see ya

Kiwi

max 105

 :gob:

 

Oh yeah.........:rolleyes:

[SPman]

Seeing as how when the roads are clear, the av speed seems to be around 120-130, I cann't see any reason for not raising the limit to at least 130, and then hammering things like careless and inconsiderate driving, stupid passing, etc..............oops....silly me....of course, you can't do that by rote....the BiB might have to think, have skill and judgement and actually know about what constitutes driving skills......and thats probably beyond 85% of them these days! :mad: :brick:

[wkid_one]

Surely they should focus on penalising distractions while driving - like cellphones. smoking, makeup, kids yelling, turning to talk to passengers, old men in hats.

I will say it again - surely there has to be a minimum level where the law of diminishing returns says - given the number of drivers, car and miles done - this is as low as we are going to get the road toll by focusing on speed....


Drink Driving - Yes
Non Warranted/Registered Cars - Yes
Running lights - Yes
Intersection Behaviour in General - Yes
etc


Yet we don't ever see the cops focusing on this - instead they focus on the bikers (because we speed) and the boyracers (because they make their cars look and sound like they speed). 

Yet as a segment of the driving population - bikers are probably more aware of our mortality everytime we ride, our need to improve our skills, the mechanical soundness of our bike (excl.  KK), the road conditions and generally concentrate harder as a result of these things.

As for mister 'Cash Register' Cop - 100 tickets in 8 hours, where is the community focus of that - pulling someone over for 61kph??  Does that 1kph over 60 make that much of a difference - where is the statistical data to justify this.

In NZ - we are running off speed limits set years ago - and the only thing that is the true limiting factor is the condition of our roading infrastructure.  It would be an interesting economic exercise for a consulting firm to undertake to look at - if they spent the present budget for the police focus on traffic laws and spent it on roading instead - whether this would have a bigger impact on the road toll than the police - plus the benefits are more long term.

[merv]

Trouble is our bureaucrats are looking across the Tasman and over there in SA as an example, they have just lowered a whole lot of the 110km/hr highways to 100km/hr. Quite the opposite approach to the Italians as noted above. In the end who is crashing? I would say not the average guy that regularly exceeds the limit in good conditions. The dickheads that crash are those that screw up no matter what speed they are going. It is true however the greater the speed on impact the greater the damage. Why penalise all the safe riders/drivers because a few screw up. They always set the rules to suit the incompetent or lowest denominator. Every time shit happens the reaction seems to be "God we need a rule to tighten up on this", never "Silly fucker screwed up he should have been more competent". Same thing happens with these "killer roads" gotta straighten them out etc etc. We seem to have some behaving more like the Yanks with "not my fault, who can I blame?" attitudes, but without the excessive litigation that goes with it over there. Without risk everyone will be bored like morons and how do we stop this rot setting in here in NZ? Given how many people don't like sticking to the speed limit how come it is being regulated so hard? It is almost like when it comes to the crunch its a bit like OK as long as its not in my back yard and all the silly fuckers say things like "dangerous hoons and boy racers down my street, we need judder bars, lower speed limits, ban them after 9pm" and all that stuff. So how come then it seems the sensible people are outnumbered by the politically correct few? I am buggered if I know. Do we need to start a petition to get the speed limit raised or something? But then we would be labled troublemakers. Worse than driving a slow tractor up the steps of parliament.

[Marmoot]

no...no.......

Higher speed limit + WELL-EDUCATED drivers/riders = GOOD

Higher speed limit + STUPID drivers/riders = BAD

Lower speed limit + WELL-EDUCATED drivers/riders = BAD

Unfortunately, our drivers level is really bad.......

(BRING BACK DEFENSIVE COURSE'S SKID PAN!!!!!)

[Lee Rusty]

isnt it amaazing how every one thinks they are a good driver /rider and other people are crap.
you think you a re safe at 130 -150 km so does the other guy

its only a matter of time until neither of you are not around any more

[bluninja]

Originally posted by Lee Rusty
isnt it amaazing how every one thinks they are a good driver /rider and other people are crap.
you think you a re safe at 130 -150 km so does the other guy

its only a matter of time until neither of you are not around any more

Wow! An amazing piece of over generalisation. It's true that part of the social conditioning, and male psychology makes men  overconfident....but come on...if that's really what you believe maybe you should be looking for a job walking in front of cars waving a red flag as they drive sedately behind you....I'm sure that would reduce the road toll overnight.:D

There's times and places when I feel the risk of accident is low enough for me to go that fast. There's times and places when I think 50 kmh is too risky. I make a judgement on the appropriateness of my speed for the conditions. Some days I get it wrong...either way. One day someone else will get it wrong at the same time as me and we have an accident.....but such is life.

TTFN

[Lee Rusty]

dont you feel that that is a tad arrogant - what the other person they are only doing what you do - and you feel your safe - so do they
your reasoning that one the other or both deserve to die or be injured is at best flawed.

[bluninja]

Nope, not arrogant...but I can see that what I wrote makes it appear so to you. I will continue to maintain, and improve my roadskills and riding. I will make the best judgements that I can as to my riding/driving style and speed with regards to the prevailing conditions. I will try and ride/drive to a system that reduces errors and mistakes or the impact of them. However I WILL make mistakes and errors of judgement from time to time that may not be covered by my safety systems.

Despite all this; if I make a mistake and another road user is on their game, then it may not result in an accident. If we both have our moments distraction/error at the same time then the chances of an accident increase. This is not arrogance, merely an observation of risk reality. This is not just a speed issue, though speed reduces my time to take remedial action, and increase the damage injury

And do I say anywhere that either, or, deserve to be injured? NO, that's something you have made up in your head! :angry2:

TTFN

[Sharkey]

There has been lots of bitching in many and varied forums about the crapness of other drivers and how it is up to motorcyclists to look out for number one, and lights on aren't worth a damn, and SUV drivers are the worst, because whilst they think they are safe they definately are not. And yet here we have many of the same people who made those comments arguing that these same crap drivers be allowed to travel at 130-150. Madness.

What we really need are dedicated motorcycle roads with no cars, cow poo, on coming traffic. Then we could make the speed limit whatever we like. Wait a minute...... we do have such roads. They are called Pukekohe track days.......

[130wide]

My brother and I have done a few 1000 milers and 350's in the past, there would be no way I would have finished any of them had I sat on or around 110kmph.
A mate of mine had to pull out of a 1000 as he was on 70 demerts so was averaging 110-120ks at this speed he lost his alertness and decided for the best to pull out to be safe.
All the times we finished we would be traveling at or over 140ks, it's not the speed that kills it's the ability of the rider, what he/she looks for, road condition, other vechiles, weather, bike set up etc. If you are checking these things every second you ride and adjusting your speed to the condition, you have a good chance of staying up right no matter how fast your going.

[Lee Rusty]

see forum titled YET another Fatality for good reasons to keep the speed down in places where you dont know the road. and to be careful even where you do.

You can't make the other drivers responsible for you - or if you do you deserve all they dish out, remember there first thing to say at a crash is always "I didnt see him"

[MikeL]

So in this endlessly revolving argument about what is a "safe" speed and what is a "safe" rider, sooner or later we come down to some basic philosophy. As I see it, there is only a limited number of possibilities that will take into account the wide variability of human factors and the fact that "safety" is not an absolute but a relative term, a spectrum of acceptable risk.

1. A libertarian, laissez-faire approach that minimizes the role of the state/law and maximises individual responsibility. There are no or very few restrictions, but culpability for negligence resulting in death/injury/damage is established in civil law courts with consequent (unlimited) monetary awards. A slightly more interventionist variation on this would include criminal charges as well as civil claims. Essentially the rider himself or herself decides what is "safe" and is only proved wrong when he/she has an accident, at which point he/she must face the full consequences of the faulty judgement.

2. An opposing view that seeks to prevent death/injury/damage by using legal sanctions to deter the behaviours that are considered to be direct or contributing causes of such deaths/injuries etc. The rider's judgement as to what is "safe" i.e. an acceptable risk is not relevant. The determination of "safety" is made more or less arbitrarily by the law, and, because it must be universal (i.e. apply to a range of riders' abilities and other factors), the acceptable risk point is necessarily conservatively judged. All must obey the same law regardless of individual circumstances.

Unless we reject the second approach entirely (are there any unreconstructed libertarians out there?), and leaving aside the revenue-gathering aspect, which is a separate issue, the question boils down to a difference of opinion about acceptable risk. From the point of view of legal restrictions, the only constructive approach, in my view, is to argue about the possibility of changing those arbitrary points (e.g. speed, blood alcohol level, etc.) on the basis of statistics, cost/benefit, law of diminishing returns and so on, and to make positive and practical suggestions as to how to reduce the variability of human factors (driver/rider training, licence requirements, etc.) and non-human factors (in particular roading quality).

Otherwise it's all a waste of time.

[bluninja]

MikeL, good points.

However I would reject point 2 and still not be a 'reconstructed libertarian'. Detterrants, sanctions, and punishments, merely move the issue from the doing, to the avoiding getting caught doing......up to a point where the fear of the consequences create a temporary compliance. If a good enough case is put for a specific safety measure, and there are clear benefits to individuals and society in general then people will generally adhere to the 'rules'. Where the case is not made, then a heavy cost in enforcement, and enforcement avoidance takes place (and speeding is a classic case) to police the rules.

I personally see no problem with an unrestricted speed limit on certain sections of road (as on the autobahn in Germany) and then reducing the speed as you approach intersections, hills, twisties.

TTFN

[Lee Rusty]

you are correct and point 1 is the way to go, but the personal responsibility thing is the problem - the most common excuses are the bike did this or the bike did that.
the rider is the one in charge, dont get me wrong, I have been know to break the speedlimits, I dont agree with the money collectors.
Equally I dont think that going fast is the way to improve your concentration.
If you admit you cant concentrate at 100 kph what makes you believe you can convince me you can do so at 140 or more.

I have read on this site about the poor biker getting snotted by mean ugly nasty car drivers. BUT it is not ALWAYS there fault.

IF BOTH parties had been more careful..................

MOst bike crashes involve speed and Im not just talking about the biker crashing all on his own with out any help from anyone.
The trouble comes when there is something solid to hit at speed.

I have been riding for 40 years and if there is one thing I have learned it is that there is always someone better than you or me.
SOme of the talk here would have Rossi shaking in his boots.

Also remember when talking about how fast you go and how good you are - younger less experianced riders are seeing what you say and think it is the norm.

[marty]

Originally posted by MikeL
.

1. A libertarian, laissez-faire approach that minimizes the role of the state/law and maximises individual responsibility. There are no or very few restrictions, but culpability for negligence resulting in death/injury/damage is established in civil law courts with consequent (unlimited) monetary awards.

as in california - but watch out if you survive a crash and the other person doesn't ........)no acc there!

2. An opposing view that seeks to prevent death/injury/damage by using legal sanctions to deter the behaviours that are considered to be direct or contributing causes of such deaths/injuries etc. The rider's judgement as to what is "safe" i.e. an acceptable risk is not relevant. The determination of "safety" is made more or less arbitrarily by the law, and, because it must be universal (i.e. apply to a range of riders' abilities and other factors), the acceptable risk point is necessarily conservatively judged. All must obey the same law regardless of individual circumstances.

as in NZ/Aussie - heavily policed traffic, little or no leeway, govt coughs up for injury, instead of personal insuance.



i guess you just have to figure out what risks you are prepared to take. you can only control your own actions, not those of others. don't forget we share the road with some people we wouldn't get into a car with....

[marty]

don't get me wrong - i'm all for open, open road speed limits, especially on dual carriage ways with no side road, or merged side road access. it's not the outright speed that kills, just the sudden stop...... (goes for cars and bikes).
wouldn't ride without a helmet/leathers/gloves/boots though

[Motu]

A typical example of system 1 is in the US there is no legal requirment to wear a seat belt - so they don't wear them...how do they protect the occupant from themselves - with an air bag.If you make poor choices,the choices are made for you in other ways.How long before the septics make the Japs put air bags on bikes.Air bags in jackets are out there - imagine if we had to wear those!

[Hoon]

I don't agree with increasing the speed limit.  Sure some of us may be able to drive/ride competently at those speeds but that doesn't mean everyone else in the country can too.

Secondly our roads aren't good enough quality to cater to those speeds.  There was a doco on not so long ago which showed dangerous high accident corners that weren't being upgraded because all the roading money was being spent on city congestion problems.  Higher speed limits means there will be more problem corners not getting attention which will result in more deaths.

The speed limit now is fine how it is.  We're all welcome to go faster if we want, you just have to be prepared to pay the price if you are caught.  Plus, its knowing that you are exceeding the speed limit that keeps you excited and alert, not the actual speed itself.

[bikerboy]

Well put MikeL. :)

The only problem with your conclusion is that personal bias and the easier option are always factors.

Many countries have higher speeds and lower tolls. In the US where speeds were raised, fatalities rose but not the number of accidents. The accidents were mostly caused by fatigue and weather, not speed.

The only evidence for current police policy is the" faster equals greater harm". The obvious question then becomes how fast is too fast. This should be based on statistics, etc, as MikeL pointed out. However, the gatherers of such info can manipulate the facts to suit their own point of view which is why we have the situation we have now. If the facts stated better roads would lower the toll the gov't can always argue so does going slower, and that is cheaper.

Society has to say enough of this one speed for all roads. Demanding better roads and more speed flexibilityis the answer but, until it is a vote winner/loser issue we're stuck with the cheap easy answers and personal bias we have now. :done:

[SPman]

Whatever happened to Prima Facie speed limits?These were moderately common some time ago but seem to have disappeared into the mists of time....PF speed limits were speed limits that were fixed at the limit in bad weather, conditiions, etc, but you could legally travel faster in good conditions. The onus was on the Police to prove you were travelling at an unsafe speed .....or you to prove it was safe.

Unfortunately, this involves skill, experience and common sense on the part of all involved.........bugger!

[MikeL]

Originally posted by marty
i guess you just have to figure out what risks you are prepared to take. you can only control your own actions, not those of others. don't forget we share the road with some people we wouldn't get into a car with....

That's the main reason why I don't subscribe to the libertarian view, even though philosophically it appeals to me. It will only work if everyone else shares my sense of responsibility. In practice this is impossible. What do I do about the drunk, unlicensed, uninsured, unemployed and destitute driver who slams into me despite all my precautions? It's no use arguing that he must take responsibility for his actions. If the current penalties still don't deter such drivers, it's hard to see how anything else could change their behaviour. Reluctant though some of us may be to admit it, we do need law enforcement (that means Mr Plod) to protect us at least to some extent against such irresponsible actions.

So in principle I accept the necessity for such things as speed limits. But the devil, as they say, is in the detail. There is certainly a lot of scope for more lateral thinking, flexibility and originality than we see emanating currently from the Ministry of Road Revenue.

[mangell6]

DISCLAIMER TO PREVENT FLAMES :o : This is my own opinion and personal view point not yours. :D


In days not so long ago some of the 'older' persons on this board, like me, learnt to ride/drive on "sealed" roads, some not so sealed roads, gravel roads and "they call this a road! roads."

We learnt how to recognise road conditions, the roads were usually very windy and you were not able to go 'that fast' (yeah right), we drove/road on vehicles that handled like pigs. We learnt about road conditions, looking out for hazards - Pole cattle on the side of the road at dusk, what to do in a slide (apart from praying) and numerous other "skills", like how to stay awake at 3am when you still have an hour to get home before work.

The issue with ALL of the above comments is that it is not the road or the road conditions or even the speed, the issue is the experience of the driver/rider.

How many people die on the piece of road between the Bombays and Huntly, it is labeled a killer of a road - why?

I have travelled many long distances in cars (and now bikes) and know that that particular piece of road is approximately one hour from a persons house in Auckland/Hamilton. Most people are not used to travelling distances AND concentrating. Travelling at 80+ requires a different concentration level than travelling to the shops and to work, i.e. commuting.

The Canterbury and Hauraki Plains have lots of accidents on their straight roads - people "fall asleep" or are not concentrating (bored with the road).

A lot of riders/drivers do not have the experience to:

- Travel on the open road i.e. above 100km.
- Travel at night
- Travel in "adverse conditions"
- Travel on windy roads (any speed)

And the solution is . . . . . .
:gob:Lower the speed limit and gather more revenue!

Of course not, lets spend money on assisting people to gain experience in riding and driving.

For me a defensive driving course/Advanced Rider Training should be compulsory, I have made my daughter go on the Defensive Driving Course - she doesn't have a choice and neither does my son.

The straightening of roads will only increase road accidents, people become "zoned" after driving a long a 'straight' piece of road and pay more attention to what is happening around them than on their driving.

The straightening of the 6km of windy roads at Kaitoke, near Upper Hutt (Wellington), will no longer "slow people down" after they have travelled on a motorway from Wellington and BEFORE they have reached the Rimutaka Hill road. ( Check out the photos the Wkid_One has previously posted on the hill road.)

The first real "corner" that riders/drivers will come across now has a wire fence, with a nice drop off, on one side and a bank on the other. Guess what will be the number one "killer corner" in the Wellington area sometime next year. :argh:

In conclusion, until driver/rider training is compulsory, thus enabling them to gain real experience, or some other system that increase peoples experience on the road nothing will really change.

Mike

PS Why can a learner rider only have a 250cc bike but a learner driver can drive a 300hpV8 car?? OR do I need to read the road code again.
:done:

[wkid_one]

I have no problems with increasing speeds - this should mean ACC premiums will decrease as most people will be dead and not injured in accidents.

For fucks sake - everybody bloody speeds anyway?

But seriously, my concerns - like lowering the drinking age - where previously it was 20 - and there were 17-18yo in the pub, now it is 18, there are 15-16yo in the pub.

We presently have a speed limit of 100kph - and people think 120-130 is ok - if you up the speed limit - people will just exceed this as well.......

It is better to leave the limit where it is and reduce the zero tolerance to speeding - and focus on driver education, behaviour and responsibility.  You have to cater for the lowest common denominator (read:  Recent Immigrants, learners, old men with hats). Allow the police to provide discretion when faced with speeding and go - well the weather was shit hot, the road is clear, no traffic - just watch your speed son (UTOPIA)

Think of this - the limit is 150kph, you are trucking along quite nicely in your car and rock around a blind corner up the back of a car travelling at 80kph??  NZ roads can't handle an increased speed limit - and neither can NZ drivers.  Having a higher limit is fine - but there will always be people who travel below it - increasing the limit just increases the gap between the slowest (who aren't go to increase speed no matter how hight the limit is) and the fastest - making the roads less safe.

Remember we have lampposts, fences, livestock crossings, ditchs, culverts, telephone polls etc all lining our supposed highways - not really a place to increase the speeding limit - before you can consider this - you need to address the roading issues.  Like removing these hazards, smoothing the roads out.

The other factor is the quality of the cars in NZ - you again have to cater for the lowest common denominator here also - this again goes back to the slowest versus the fastest - whereby the slowest become mobile obstructions if the limit is increased

MY OPINION ALSO

[wkid_one]

Originally posted by mangell6
PS Why can a learner rider only have a 250cc bike but a learner driver can drive a 300hpV8 car?? OR do I need to read the road code again.
:done:

Some more permutations of that - why can a learner rider by a hypersport GP road legal Aprilia RS250 - yet not a shitty old 400/600?

It is interesting that for $3-10k - a kid new to motorbiking can go out and buy a bike that will shit on 99% of the cars on the road?

Also - it is quite often safer for them to have a less powerful, roomier, more stable 400-600?

Bring in horsepower rather than cc limits I say.......good to see OZ have revisited theirs and outlawed the RS250 to learners.

[Marmoot]

enghh.....rrr.....I remember a posting in NZ Herald recently.....

If lowering the speed limit reduces road toll, and if government's ultimate aim is zero road toll, then the speed limit should be zero?

I support that. :rockon:

(either the dumb bees in the hive realize Swain is an idiot, or we end up standing still for the next millenia)

[Marmoot]

Originally posted by mangell6
PS Why can a learner rider only have a 250cc bike but a learner driver can drive a 300hpV8 car?? OR do I need to read the road code again.
:done:

Oh c'mon....at least you don't have to ride around with your mum on your back all the time like L cagers do :niceone:

[Lee Rusty]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by wkid_one


For fucks sake - everybody bloody speeds anyway?



QUOTE]

did you know there are some areas in NZ where the ambulance service is not replacing staff who leave due to the lower amount of work caused by a lower road crash toll.

Why do you think the Traffic police are now targeting the more obscure road rules. It is because the anti speed campaign has been so effective. They are not making enough money from speeding fines.
Drivers these days are scared of loss of licence, huge fines in relation to offences, Truckers seem to be copping a load of flak from Traffic police at the moment. Trucking companies have be issued warnings that truck drivers not wearing fitted seat belts are to be targeted next week.
And that is getting pretty desperate to increase the governments coffers.

If you drive a truck and it has fitted seat belts be warned if you are in Auckland at least. Wear them or get pinged.

[What?]

The thing about speed is, it is all relative. Blanket limits make no sense - 100 is ridiculously slow on some roads, and downright dangerous (or even impossible) on others. Pomgolia once had no speed limit on the open road (hence the term "open road"), but the cops could do you for Speed Dangerous. Much more sensible, don't you think?

And Marmoot, good point my man. How often do we hear about crashes where "speed was a factor"? Of course speed was a factor - stationary objects are known for not colliding with other stationary objects.

[Dave]

I hear that the truck limit is being raised from 80 to 90.
does this mean that the roads have improved or is it the trucks?
because bikes use the same roads an bikes have progressed as well, can we go faster too?

[MikeL]

Originally posted by Dave
I hear that the truck limit is being raised from 80 to 90.


?? When did you last see a truck sticking to 80??

[marty]

Originally posted by wkid_one
Some more permutations of that - why can a learner rider by a hypersport GP road legal Aprilia RS250 - yet not a shitty old 400/600?

.

i should know - i've got a shitty old 400 and a spanky new rs250, and I know which one is quicker to go/stop/pull wheelstands/chicks/cops (must get a back seat....will do both better!)

[marty]

oops that's right, the 400 isn't shitty - it's for sale. see the for sale ads for pix.. :)

[Lou Girardin]

One of our major issues is the standard of driving tests in NZ. The average 1st time pass rate is 75%. In most of Europe thats the fail rate. I recently did 2 years as a licence examiner. The LTSA has structured the new tests in such a way that that you can learn the test by rote and pass and still not be competent to drive. It's actually possible to get a licence and not know how to park.
Many Asians, in particular, will practice a test route dozens of times until they pass. However, take them off the route, as I did once to prove a point, and they can't cope and revert to total incompetence.
The problem is that tougher tests are politically unpopular, draconian speed enforcement is much better and more lucrative.
Lou

[MikeL]

Two articles on separate pages in today's Herald reveal the narrowness of the vision of our decision-makers. A further "softening-up" to make the introduction of hidden speed cameras and demerit points from speed cameras appear inevitable (some strange logic in the article: spectacular success in reducing the road toll means we have to redouble our efforts!) in order to get down to that magical, mystical 300 which is apparently (without any real debate) considered an acceptable number of deaths. Another article announces the long-overdue tightening up on dirty exhaust emissions, which (surprise, surprise!) have apparently accounted for an estimated extra 400 deaths annually.

Hmm... something doesn't seem quite right here. Surely consistency would require that instead of banning dirty vehicles or spending money on education and training and technical resources to upgrade vehicle exhaust quality, we deter people by fining offenders on a sliding scale according to the degree of pollution. Of course the police would need to invest in some sophisticated measuring equipment, but the fines would more than cover the capital expenditure and running costs, and who knows, there might be a little profit to be made as well...

On another note in relation to Lou's observation about driver licensing: does the practical driving test still require a demonstration of parallel parking ability? My observation in Auckland city is that for many drivers (of recent residence in this country), parallel parking is only possible with two friends to help, one standing in front and one standing behind...

[Coldkiwi]

i agree.. driver/rider eductaion is the way to go.

the vast majority of accidents happen because people make mistakes. Either they didn't look properly, didn't drive at a safe speed, didn't check their tyre pressures before leaving..a  whole host of things that would be listed as causes of the accident under"things that weren't done properly prior to impact'.

So, if we reduce the numer of mistakes made by road users, we should see a corresponding decrease in accidents.

And the obvious way to reduce mistakes is through education, not scare tactics.

Imagine a primary school kid asked to do complicated long division. it doesn't help them get the right answer if you give them a super duper flashy calculator if they haven't been taught how to use it. Nor does it help get the right answer if you stand over them and threaten them with no tea if they get it wrong. What WILL help get the right answer is sit down with them and take them through a similar problem and show them how to do it right. Show them how to use their brain and it will also be more rewarding for them.

same as drivers/riders on the road. Telling people 100kph is generally safe on open roads in NZ is useless if they can't use their education to figure out when that is not true. People need to be told 'you will have less control if it is raining, slippery, tight corners, poor road conditions and the car will become hard to control... now lets go out to the skid pan so you can try it out for yourself'

our licencing system is only  rubber stamp system, not an education system. until it is, we're going to be trying to protect idiots from other idiots and innocents and thats completely unpolicable.

 

 

 

[bluninja]

So which grop of idiots am I in? The group that needs protecting, or the group that is doing the damage?:D Or does that depend on the prevailing road conditions at the time? LOL

TTFN

[Coldkiwi]

probably the group that needs protecting Si! after all.. you do button off on the road a bit because you need a larger margin for error (yours and others).

of course given where you originate from that kinda pushes you into the first category a bit more so I suppose its a fine line!! :p

[Marmoot]

Originally posted by MikeL
On another note in relation to Lou's observation about driver licensing: does the practical driving test still require a demonstration of parallel parking ability? My observation in Auckland city is that for many drivers (of recent residence in this country), parallel parking is only possible with two friends to help, one standing in front and one standing behind...

*ahem*.....(clears throat)........helpers are RECOMMENDED ABCORDING TO ROAD CODE BOOK AND LTSA FACT SHEETS!

:angry2:

(no, they don't include paralel parking test in license test at all nowadays.........They don't even test reversing ability!!!!)

Clearly, there IS something wrong with our drivers education.

And this is my point of view as A driver (now)....sheesh.....

[wkid_one]

Apparently - Parallel parks are being scaled down and diagonal parks replacing them....as PP's are too dangerous for oncoming traffic.

Also - the old 'reversing around a corner' has gone - as the LTSA realised they had actually made the manuveur illegal.

Do you know - that apparently it is illegal to reverse out your driveway on to the road??

[What?]

Quite right, Dan. It is illegal to reverse on to the road. So they want more angle parking (nose in, not bum in like Aussie) so you have to reverse out of the parking space into the roadway... Is it any wonder nobody knows the road rules?:argh:

[Marmoot]

Maybe it's part of the revenue-gathering process?

(am I just being paranoid?)

[SPman]

Whats so frigging hard about parallel parking anyway? As long as I've got 1500mm over the length of the van to get in, its a piece of piss!

What......yeah thats the first thing I thought of as well....what planet is the LTSA on?  Not our planet, obviously! :beer:

[MikeL]

Originally posted by Marmoot
*ahem*.....(clears throat)........helpers are RECOMMENDED ACCORDING TO ROAD CODE BOOK AND LTSA FACT SHEETS!

:angry2:



Well, you learn something new every day! Now perhaps I just ought to have a look at the road code again, for the first time since 1967...

But I think there's a serious issue here: why are we allowing this dumbing down in licence requirements? Surely we should be making it harder, not easier???

[Motu]

It's because people are dumber these days,seldom in this day and age will someone be born with my interlectual capacity.

[mangell6]

vast majority of accidents happen because people make mistakes.

In Fridays Dominion (Wellington Paper), there was an article on how there was going to be a concerted effort to remove "road obstacles", i.e. power pole, etc to prevent injury and deaths.
:argh:

The article made the statement that 80% of accidents are casused by driver error and that 3?% of these involved road side obstacles such as power poles.

Again lets put the money into correcting the "driver errors" not removing the so called obstacle!

But I forget this money has to be spent on roading.

[Marmoot]

I totally agree with making Defensive Driving Course (advance driving course) compulsory.

However, apparently, they stopped doing practice in the course and now only stick to theories only. The reason being that the government stopped subsidizing them and that made it too expensive for them to do skid practice, etc.

There, another ammunition in motorists vs government war.

[Motu]

Ive done a couple of defensive driving courses,and my 2 daughters have done one each.Did my first one in 1973 - told to by the Law because they didn't like the way I drove and another in about 91 because I needed it for some reason....crap - if you haven't figured that stuff out in the first couple of years you never will,and being told won't help,stupid is as stupid does.no practical.

I'm happy my kids did it,to speed up the licence and to give some good info to a new driver.When my younger daughter did it last year the tutor was an Indian who wasn't too good at English - she never learnt a thing,just a waste of her time and my money.

[wkid_one]

The NZ Defensive Driving Course is a waste of time.  All theory based and largely only a means to get the licensing period reduced - there is no fail unless you are a complete gherkin......no value in it at all.

[Marmoot]

That's exactly what my point is. There should be a course where people are taught the advanced techniques and the consequences of mistakes (in a controlled environment).

My saying is always: when you have never exceeded the limit and live through it, you'll never know your limit, and thus your efficiency will always be reduced, significantly at times.

But, I'm only a person who dreams about a perfect world where the speed limit varies according to condition and sometimes reaches up to unlimited in a perfect road.......dream again.........

[Kickaha]

My brother and I have done a few 1000 milers and 350's in the past, there would be no way I would have finished any of them had I sat on or around 110kmph.
A mate of mine had to pull out of a 1000 as he was on 70 demerts so was averaging 110-120ks at this speed he lost his alertness and decided for the best to pull out to be safe.


I've done a couple of thousand milers and didn't travel must faster than the 120kph mark and had no problems with maintaining concentration,I think it comes down to each person.

Do they still have unrestricted limits in the Northern Territory in Oz,where it used to be you could be ticketed for inappropriate speed,not that they would consider that here.

If road safety was that important,then every last dollar from speeding fines and road tax etc would go into driver education and improving the roading system.

[Jackrat]

STREtCH,YAWN,FART, I think I might go for a ride,The KB crew seem to have gone into space cadet mode again.Just have to keep an eye out for all the old folk,Bikers who think theys good,boy racers,blokes on the side of the road carrying frozen chickens,fellas hanging it out on trail bikes,Riding instructors who keep trying to talk common sence to fuck wits without realising they can never win,Girls who can probaby ride better than me anyway,People dreaming about the politics of speed limits,The incressing cost of ACC,Asian drivers,
Push bikers dressed like a tube of tooth paste,Cows,Horses,Gravel,pot holes,
An people practicing poor written skills.
If I managed to miss anyone,Sorry I will get ya' next time,After all I'm not perfect like some on this site.
Cheers an have a nice day. :lol:

[Drunken Monkey]

A typical example of system 1 is in the US there is no legal requirment to wear a seat belt - so they don't wear them...how do they protect the occupant from themselves - with an air bag.If you make poor choices,the choices are made for you in other ways.How long before the septics make the Japs put air bags on bikes.Air bags in jackets are out there - imagine if we had to wear those!

Actually that isn't true - according to USA tourism:
"Seat belts are required:
Nearly all states have laws requiring the driver and front passengers to wear seat belts. Many states require children to wear seat belts even in the back seats. Nearly every state requires special child restraint seats for all young children. Most states require motorcyclists to wear helmets. "

Not specific on which states do and don't, but nearly all means nearly all.

The airbags are required because _compliance_ with the law is the problem (as low as 52% on West Virginia (USA Today), compared ot the national average of 80% (USA Today))


And 150km/h speed limits in Italy...fuck I thought that place was dangerous enough to drive in before (let alone ride my bike).

Same goes with autobahns...great to speed down the fast lane on a quiet stretch on a Sunday evening, but German autobahns are _notorious_ for large accidents and severe traffic hold ups - So regular, Tour buses build these hold ups into their schedules.

[wkid_one]

Shit - this thread was dead until yesterday - surely we have covered all the points by now - and some

[spudchucka]

Unless there is a national "autobahn" type of highway covering the length of the country I can't see there ever being an increase in the speed limit. There are just too many variables on our roads, flocks of sheep, milk tankers, nanna drivers, shit box cars driven by dangerous lunatics, the list is endless.

There will never be bike only roads because there just aint enough of us to support such a luxury.

The police will continue to target what ever is believed to be injury promoting road behaviour and unfortunately for bikers that will always include speed.

I'm all for common sense in speed enforcement. If you speed past a school, a hospital, any residential area that has kids around or just in circumstances that make the speed dangerous, then you will get a ticket. If it's on a remote road in good conditions, minimal traffic etc, I don't see whats wrong with cops using their discretion and giving the offending driver / rider a stern finger wagging.

The only exceptions to such rules in my opinion is when the driver / rider is a burgler, thief, drug dealer, gang member or other such form of sub-human scum, then stuff em, they get the ticket regardless!!!!!!!!

The problem for the general public that speeds occasionally is that cops are not being encouraged to use their discretion but rather to issue infringement notices whenever an offence is disclosed. Some would argue that this is the only fair way to police the roads in that an offence is punished regardless of the circumstances or who the offender is.

[Drunken Monkey]

Shit - this thread was dead until yesterday - surely we have covered all the points by now - and some

Naw...gotta set the record straight, no matter how late...

Can't expect me to stay out of a roading/road safety forum just 'cos I didn't use my computer for a day. Don't want to see you guys chasing you're own tails when I've seen it before in all the car clubs...thought 2 wheelers were above that kinda thing ;)

[marty]

speaking of speed, i am trying to locate a speed camera picture of a targa car near national park at 330kmh. i'll post it when i get it - you 'll be suprised how clear it is

[wkid_one]

Thereby dispelling the myth that if you travel of 'X' speed you won't get pinged

[marty]

The problem for the general public that speeds occasionally is that cops are not being encouraged to use their discretion but rather to issue infringement notices whenever an offence is disclosed. Some would argue that this is the only fair way to police the roads in that an offence is punished regardless of the circumstances or who the offender is.

valid point, but i know a few highway patrol guys who are also bikers, and they are the ones to get if you're going a bit quick - as they say, there's always another (cage driver) around the corner.....

[wkid_one]

speaking of speed, i am trying to locate a speed camera picture of a targa car near national park at 330kmh. i'll post it when i get it - you 'll be suprised how clear it is

Speaking of speed - may be interesting to some

[Drunken Monkey]

Thereby dispelling the myth that if you travel of 'X' speed you won't get pinged

That is more to do with how the unit is designed to operate, eg on 'Top Gear' they stated that UK GATSOs MUST take 2 x pictures of your vehicle in order to issue an infringement notice...some cars can go fast enough to be out of frame before the second shot.

As far as not capturing a picture of a car on camera here, it surprises me how many people seem to think that becuase their $200 point and shoot camera can only do 1/250th of a second, that speed camera aren't any better.

At 1/16,000th of a second (your typical medium-good quality SLR) a 330km/h car would move:

330km/h / 3600 = .09166 km/s = 91.66m/s

91.66m/s * 1/16,000 = 0.005m = 5mm

That 4m car would have moved 5mm in a conservative exposure time. Not unreasonable to think a speed camera could do in excess of 1/40,000th sec.

PS - This isn't the fabled pic of a while GTR Skyline down some straight in the South Island?? I heard it was faked...

[marty]

no - it's a highly modded scimitar, i have been in it at high speed, and it's quick. it will do 9000rpm in 6th gear, and was pinged a 2 minute penalty in the 2002 targa for being under the minimum time for the national park stage. it has been built by an ex formula 1 mechanic, with no expense spared

[Drunken Monkey]

Ah yes, I know the one.

[marty]

here's a pic of it.

[spudchucka]

valid point, but i know a few highway patrol guys who are also bikers, and they are the ones to get if you're going a bit quick - as they say, there's always another (cage driver) around the corner.....

Agreed, I was generalising and also know plenty of decent Hwy ptrl guys who possess a decent common sense gland. My point really was that the organisation doesn't encourage the use of discretion in speed enforcement.

[Indiana_Jones]

lol auto bahn styles, anywayz If you raise the speed limit people will still break it :D

-Indy

[Lou Girardin]

These debates always bring up the same responses, eg. what happens when you're doing 130 and you come up to a car at 80 around a corner. Our roads are only designed for 80km/h, etc etc etc.
It's all bullshit, any speed is dangerous if you don't drive to the conditions. Back in the '80s Tip Top corner on the Sth M/Way was known as a death trap, yet we used to regularly take it at 160 plus. but not if there wasn't room to do so.
Here's a question, when they raised the speed limit from 80 to 100km/h in 1984, what improvements did they make to the roads before they did so?
Answer - None. Yet the road toll started to fall.
And if you're going to accept the lowest common denominator argument, then NZ's drivers warrant a 50km/h speed limit.
Who's in favour?
Lou

[XRNR]

...It's all bullshit, any speed is dangerous if you don't drive to the conditions. Back in the '80s Tip Top corner on the Sth M/Way was known as a death trap, yet we used to regularly take it at 160 plus....

:Offtopic: Sorry, couldn't help remembering the picture on the front page of the NZ Herald I woke up to early one Saturday morning (back then). With a completely disintegrated Mk3 (I think) Zephyr strewn across the Krd end of Ponsonby Rd. After it had come up Newton Gully & got airborne & collected one of those nice big trees by the water tank.

All that was left was wreckage (like the latest space shuttle disaster) and a nice big V8 block sitting in the middle of the road.

That memory will live with me for ever. Anyone else remember it?

A fine example of speeding!

[XRNR]

speaking of speed, i am trying to locate a speed camera picture of a targa car near national park at 330kmh. i'll post it when i get it - you 'll be suprised how clear it is


While you're at it, can you try and track down the one you were mentioning about the guy doing 300ish, lying on the tank of the Hayabusa too!

[Jackrat]

:Offtopic: Sorry, couldn't help remembering the picture on the front page of the NZ Herald I woke up to early one Saturday morning (back then). With a completely disintegrated Mk3 (I think) Zephyr strewn across the Krd end of Ponsonby Rd. After it had come up Newton Gully & got airborne & collected one of those nice big trees by the water tank.

All that was left was wreckage (like the latest space shuttle disaster) and a nice big V8 block sitting in the middle of the road.

That memory will live with me for ever. Anyone else remember it?

A fine example of speeding!

Yep,That would of been about 75-76,And as you say it was mean one. :shit:

[Lou Girardin]

:Offtopic: A fine example of speeding!
And mindless stupidity. Which was the greater factor?
Lou

[SPman]

Mix the two for a lethal cocktail - happening all the time, on a road near you!

[svs]

That is more to do with how the unit is designed to operate, eg on 'Top Gear' they stated that UK GATSOs MUST take 2 x pictures of your vehicle in order to issue an infringement notice...some cars can go fast enough to be out of frame before the second shot.


UK cameras take 2 pictures 0.5 seconds apart so that in court, they not only have the radar speed but you can also work out the speed from the difference between the two pictures. There are often distance markings on the road.

Last I saw on top gear test was that driving a car past a gatso at 170mph, then it simply failed to go off at all - no mention of being out the frame for the second shot.