Latest anti-speed ad

[MSTRS]

Just heard a new one on the radio. Goes something like...
Dad always drives pretty fast, so we got him the perfect plate 2QK4U. Then we got a call from the cops. They'd found him dead, wrapped around a tree. They said he'd been doing 110kph. It's true what they say about the bigger mess.


110kph? No reference to sort of road.
WHAT A CROCK OF SHIT!!!

[scumdog]

It was in the Pak'n'Sav carpark.....ain't that where EVERYBODY speeds??

[vifferman]

"I was only doing 110 - everyone does that along here!"
"That's where a lot of the crashes are happening, Sir."

I think we either need to travel at less than 110 or faster. It's obviously some weird speed that's conducive to fatal statistics.
Obviously, modern automobiles are designed to explode or otherwise malfunction at exactly 110.


I also think "they" (you know - them) can't advertise someone crashing at LESS than 100km/h, or at some (shock! horror!) speed like 111km/h.

[Indiana_Jones]

OMG. No way

Cause like the difference between 100 and 110 is like gliding to a stop or smashing into a brick wall!

-Indy

[Hitcher]

Clearly personalised plates are dangerous and should be banned!


(One lives in hope...)

[Finn]

Clearly personalised plates are dangerous and should be banned!


(One lives in hope...)

And "Baby on Board" signs.

[scumdog]

Dad always drives pretty fast, they said he'd been doing 110kph. !!!

Hells-bells, in that case I'm lucky to be alive!!:shit:

[Dave Lobster]

Dad always drives pretty fast, so we got him the perfect plate 2QK4U. Then we got a call from the cops. They'd found him dead, wrapped around a tree. They said he'd been doing 110kph. It's true what they say about the bigger mess.



Maybe he was going that fast to avoid the booze bus??

[Headbanger]

Anyone doing less then 110 deserves to be shot.

[swee]

Thing is if your traveling around 110 your obviously pushing your limits in terms of legality, so you're a conscious speeder who would be spending more time concentrating on your speedo than on the road.

Whereas, if you were traveling way above 110 you're obviously there to carve up the corners, hence focusing on the road and on coming hazards as opposed to caring so much about your speed.

[BOGAR]

Clearly personalized plates are dangerous and should be banned!


(One lives in hope...)

I agree with Hitcher on this one. It looks like if you speed then get a personalized plate you will crash. :done:

[scumdog]

Thing is if your traveling around 110 your obviously pushing your limits in terms of legality, so you're a conscious speeder who would be spending more time concentrating on your speedo than on the road.

Whereas, if you were traveling way above 110 you're obviously there to carve up the corners, hence focusing on the road and on coming hazards as opposed to caring so much about your speed.

Hahahaha...'focus on the road and oncoming hazards'...hahahha...most road users struggle to stay focussed on a good nose-picking let alone anything else..:bleh:

[MSTRS]

What really fucks me off is the inference that speed alone is the problem. There is seldom, if ever, and reference to appropriate speed/s.
If 110kph is likely to result in death and destruction, then 100 is too. When will we ever get to see/hear some education on 'appropriate speed/s'? And don't give me the old 'When the conditions change (reduce) your speed". Since it's all about absolutes, then what is a safe (ha!) speed on a straight road, at night, in the rain? 72.5kph? More? Less?
EDIT: 2 scenarios...same spot/conditions
1/. driver killed, was doing 110kph.
2/. driver killed, was doing 99kph
The first one was because he was speeding, right? How to explain the second one...bad luck? Come on...both were because neither driver was good enough (in the circumstances)

[Max Preload]

Don't you people know, as soon as you exceed the posted speed limit YOU DIE! To learn this you must watch the ads closely, as I have. :baby:

Isn't it about time they started targeting inattentive drivers instead of exclusively those that simply exceed an arbitrary speed limit? I think I've said this before but how come you can cause an actual metal twisting, glass breaking crash by failing to give way and get away with a small infringement fee, yet exceed a speed limit and harm no person or property and you're treated almost like a baby-eating war criminal?

[vifferman]

It's about time "they" stopped preaching unbelievable propaganda at us and used our hard-earned tax for proper educational campaigns. The drink-driving ones are OK, as are those about taking breaks and taking care at intersections, but they're not addressing the basic problem, which is that we as a nation have an attitude problem - a laissez-faire attitude to driving, which means we don't treat it with the seriousness it deserves.
As others have said - if "they" are going to waffle on about speed, then it needs to be about appropriate speed. There are other things they could address: courtesy, following distances, hazard recognition, roundabouts, stopping (at stop signs, red AND orange lights), correct use of flush medians, speed in school zones and passing buses, speed while towing, avoiding distractions, what to do when your car skids, etc etc etc.

[Bass]

Cause like the difference between 100 and 110 is like gliding to a stop or smashing into a brick wall!

-Indy

Actually, unfortunately, there is some truth to this.
Kinetic energy (a fair measure of how much you smash yourself up when you hit) = half M times V squared.
i.e. it's proportional to the square of your speed.
Brakes tyres etc are closer to linear when it comes to disposing of Kinetic energy. What this means is that you have to ditch quite a bit more energy to lose 10 kph at 100 kph than you do to lose 10 kph at 50 kph, but your brakes can't allow for the difference.
To put this another way, slowing from 100 to 90 requires the loss of more energy than slowing from 50 to 40 (a lot more actually).
It also explains why your brakes appear to be more effective at lower speeds.
So it's sad but true that an extra 10 kph can make a disproportionate difference to how hard you hit.

[Dave Lobster]

As others have said - if "they" are going to waffle on about speed, then it needs to be about appropriate speed. There are other things they could address: courtesy, following distances, hazard recognition, roundabouts, stopping (at stop signs, red AND orange lights), correct use of flush medians, speed in school zones and passing buses, speed while towing, avoiding distractions, what to do when your car skids, etc etc etc.

This all sounds too reasonable to ever happen.

Everyone seems to be forgetting that the speed message is about money, not saving lives, or increasing driver ability.
It's too hard to prosecute people for bad driving/correct use of medians/et al. But it's easy to catch someone for speeding. It's easy to 'prove' to a judge/magistrate/etc.
There's money in speeding.

[MSTRS]

It's about time "they" stopped preaching unbelievable propaganda at us and used our hard-earned tax for proper educational campaigns. The drink-driving ones are OK, as are those about taking breaks and taking care at intersections, but they're not addressing the basic problem, which is that we as a nation have an attitude problem - a laissez-faire attitude to driving, which means we don't treat it with the seriousness it deserves.
As others have said - if "they" are going to waffle on about speed, then it needs to be about appropriate speed. There are other things they could address: courtesy, following distances, hazard recognition, roundabouts, stopping (at stop signs, red AND orange lights), correct use of flush medians, speed in school zones and passing buses, speed while towing, avoiding distractions, what to do when your car skids, etc etc etc.

Exactly. Dropping speed may be effective, but it's only part of the problem. And a small part at that.

[Skyryder]

Hahahaha...'focus on the road and oncoming hazards'...hahahha...most road users struggle to stay focussed on a good nose-picking let alone anything else..:bleh:


I think KB needs a nose picking 'icon' so we can practise staying focused on the real road problem. :Police:Speed camera's:dodge:

Skyryder

[Mikkel]

Speed is bad, m'kay! Heroine on the other hand...

Raise the age at which you can get a license.
Instituate some basic drivers training.
Encourage people to think for themselves, only punish those who fail to do so.

How fucking hard can it be?

[oldrider]

If all drivers were as incompetent as their add program, we probably "would" all be dead. :rolleyes: John.

[MSTRS]

I think KB needs a nose picking 'icon' so we can practise staying focused on the real road problem. :Police:Speed camera's:dodge:

Skyryder

But that's a Key part of (final) solution....

[scumdog]

The drink-driving ones are OK, as are those about taking breaks and taking care at intersections, but they're not addressing the basic problem, which is that we as a nation have an attitude problem - a laissez-faire attitude to driving, which means we don't treat it with the seriousness it deserves.
As others have said - if "they" are going to waffle on about speed, then it needs to be about appropriate speed. There are other things they could address: courtesy, following distances, hazard recognition, roundabouts, stopping (at stop signs, red AND orange lights), correct use of flush medians, speed in school zones and passing buses, speed while towing, avoiding distractions, what to do when your car skids, etc etc etc.

Dead right Mr V.man, New Zealand drivers are pathetic when it comes to their ability (inability?), mostly it's all about 'me' and feck the rest of youz.

And when pulled over and brought to task on their slack-arsed driving they tend to go "Whaaat? I wasn't doing any harm, nobody got hurt, I 'coulda' stopped/got back to my own side of the road (Unsert favourite bit of brainless driving here)"

Suggesting somebody can't drive well in NZ is like suggesting their sexual ability is dodgy, most don't take it well.

When dealing with such drivers and giving them $150 ticket for not staying on their side of the road (in various guises) their attitude at best is "Ah, it's only $150, that's fuck all, dunno why you stopped me" - funnily enough a few of those types are on 80 demerits or so (and the 20 more that go with the ticket that they didn't know about will for most will be just be enough........:shifty:)

$150 vs the risk of a head-on, hardly a fair penalty eh??

[Indiana_Jones]

Actually, unfortunately, there is some truth to this.
Kinetic energy (a fair measure of how much you smash yourself up when you hit) = half M times V squared.
i.e. it's proportional to the square of your speed.
Brakes tyres etc are closer to linear when it comes to disposing of Kinetic energy. What this means is that you have to ditch quite a bit more energy to lose 10 kph at 100 kph than you do to lose 10 kph at 50 kph, but your brakes can't allow for the difference.
To put this another way, slowing from 100 to 90 requires the loss of more energy than slowing from 50 to 40 (a lot more actually).
It also explains why your brakes appear to be more effective at lower speeds.
So it's sad but true that an extra 10 kph can make a disproportionate difference to how hard you hit.


No agruement about the phyics of the situation, I just hate the ads saying 'If you go over 100 you WILL die'

-Indy

[NighthawkNZ]

It was in the Pak'n'Sav carpark.....ain't that where EVERYBODY speeds??

I nearly got bold over in the Warehouse carpark the other day... which was lucky cause it would have caused a lot of hurt... it was due to speed and I had the right of way... but I had to stop because I could see that the twat hadn't seen me (or didn't want to see me) and the speed he was going wouldnt be able to stop if he wanted to anyway...

I friggin hate carparks



110kph? No reference to sort of road.
WHAT A CROCK OF SHIT!!! same mess can be found if you are only doing 100kph to 109kph

[MaxB]

The LTNZ really has missed the point. Someone involved with the 'Falcon round a corner covered in land mines' ad told me that the road they filmed that was a 100km/h limit. At either end of the road were 2 hairpins where there had been accidents but they chose to film where a car could get above the speed limit (but where there had been no recorded accients).

There was a complaint to the ASA about that advert

203.152.114.11/decisions/07/07505.doc

A faceless moron from the LTSA quotes 120 speed deaths per year. What he forgets to mention is that these are in the 'wrong speed for the conditions' category not speeding over a limit which is more like 6% of fatalities.

Once again thay blur the difference between driving like a fuckwit (at any speed) and exceeding a speed limit, to suit their own purposes.

[Max Preload]

To put this another way, slowing from 100 to 90 requires the loss of more energy than slowing from 50 to 40.

Certainly, Ek=½mv². However, using that to attempt to claim that you cannot decelerate from 100km/h to 90km/h just as fast as 50km/h to 40km/h escapes me.

Last time I checked F=ma. Since mass (m) doesn't change and nor does (appreciably) the limit of grip available from the tyre and braking effort (F) which by your own admission is largely linear, acceleration can't vary within the context of Newton's Second Law.

There is someone on KB with a physics degree. Perhaps he can explain.

[MsKABC]

It was in the Pak'n'Sav carpark.....ain't that where EVERYBODY speeds??

Yeah, I know a woman who routinely drives at 80-90 kph on the open road and does about 40kph in carparks etc. She is a true menace - has backed into people's cars in carparks more than once, and even backed over a young sapling tree one day - she hit it and panicked so she planted her foot and ran right over the top of it :rolleyes:

I suppose they have to use speeds like 110kph because technically that is speeding and they want to stop it. A speed like 130 would be more credible because it would be perceived to be "dangerous" by more people.

[Hitcher]

I just hate the ads saying 'If you go over 100 you WILL die'

I hate the ones that imply that if you're travelling in excess of 100kmh then you're a killer.

[johan]

It sounds like half the population back home should be wiped out by now. Max speed limit is 120kph and 4-5 months of driving in snow.

[Grahameeboy]

Dead right Mr V.man, New Zealand drivers are pathetic when it comes to their ability (inability?), mostly it's all about 'me' and feck the rest of youz.



Very true...I have lights on high beam, LED running lights plus I ride a red bike with a red jacket...the number of times a car either looks at me / or doesn't and just waltzes out is a worry.

Number of red light runners is crazy...had one yesterday who went through when my lights went green.

Had a geezer on a scooter this am..raining...he was wearing shorts, tee-shirt and no gloves...he was in the wrong lane and wanted to cut me up...tooted my horn...he got the message...later he passes me to go off elsewhere, toot's his horn and shows me 2 fingers....

So much for easy gong Kiwi's who have the patience of a 100 metre sprinter....

Attitude is the issue...when I get a ticket I doo care, I am nice to said Officer..it's a bugger.

I do think speed is enforced too much when there are more serious road issues but it's hard to Police...speed does not kill...I have 4 speeding in last few years (had none in UK 1979 - 2005) but no accidents and still alive and kicking...

[Grahameeboy]

I hate the ones that imply that if you're travelling in excess of 100kmh then you're a killer.

Too right...you can get a licence to own a gun and you are not a killer...

[Max Preload]

Very true...I have lights on high beam, LED running lights plus I ride a red bike with a red jacket...the number of times a car either looks at me / or doesn't and just waltzes out is a worry.

Ummmmm that's just dumb. Riding around with your headlight on high beam makes it very difficult for other road users to judge your approach speed and distance. Chances are you're the victim of your own actions in this case.

[Okey Dokey]

Great to see how taxpayers' money is spent on useless drivel such as this ad...

[Grahameeboy]

Ummmmm that's just dumb. Driving around with your headlight on high beam makes it very difficult for other road users to judge your approach speed and distance. Chances are you're the victim of your own actions in this case.

That's just an excuse...how about judging speed by rate of passing objects..or hey it's a bike, I had better be more cautious.

I actually found high beam safer plus having the LED running lights is a help as it gives drivers a focal point....assuming they even look or care or course

Plus no accidents...you have to accept hazards riding a bike

[Dave Lobster]

Ummmmm that's just dumb. Riding around with your headlight on high beam makes it very difficult for other road users to judge your approach speed and distance..

I used to think this. HOWEVER, I now run with my main beam on while I'm filtering, or whenever I'm somewhere with a high proportion of asian people driving.
With main beam on, my bike's built in cloaking device is slightly less effective. Without main beam on, I'm completely invisible to asians.

[Edbear]

...There's money in speeding.

There is? Maybe I should speed more...


Hells-bells, in that case I'm lucky to be alive!!:shit:

But Scummy, you don't speed... do you...?

It's never about speed up here, never has been much. I passed a girl yesterday going in to work, doing the legal limit, but had an A4 document out on her steering wheel, reading it while talking to someone on her cellphone...

Most crashes are nose-to-tail in gridlock at 10km/h as many are texting, reading the paper talking on the phone, putting on makeup, asleep, or just about anything else but driving...

Invariably, if I see a vehicle weaving or driving erratically it is due to texting or talking on their mobile, otherwise it is your steriotypical Asian who is afraid to do more than 85km/h and has to be in the right-hand lane as they feel safer there...

[Beemer]

Speed is bad, m'kay! Heroine on the other hand...


I suppose that would go well with NighthawkNZ being "bold" in the carpark - maybe someone was trying to bowl a maiden over!

But seriously, speed is just one factor. So many times aggression is a factor too. We were driving along the other day when a guy pulled out right in front of us. We tooted the horn and got the fingers, then he pulled over, jumped out of his van and ran towards our car! Thankfully we were able to drive straight down a side street and he didn't follow us, but what would have happened if he had? He was totally in the wrong and I certainly don't think tooting at him was over the top behaviour on our part.

I get fed up with people who sit on your bumper and refuse to pass even when you slow right down to about 80. I hate people who cross the centre line on corners - and on straight stretches of road - because they aren't paying attention to the task at hand, which is driving, not texting, or lighting a cigarette.

And as for all you riders who think it is a good idea to ride with your headlights on full at all times, you piss me off the most. It may make you more visible, but you irritate the living shit out of every other road user - other motorcyclists included. I don't know which is worse - having one behind you in the distance, which is really distracting, or having one approach you and dazzle you.

Dave, can I please ask how the HELL you know you are somewhere with a high proportion of Asian drivers? Are you constantly looking in each car or do you 'just know'? I'd be more worried about every other driver thinking "why does that tosser have his lights on full?" and not paying full attention to the road because of that!

And Graemeeboy - why do you want to have your bike made a focal point? Isn't target fixation a bad thing? "Ooh, looky, a bright shiny bike - whoops, just ran it over!"

I bet Hitcher hates personalised plates because he can't come up with a good one himself! :msn-wink: Sure, some are pretty wanky, but some are very clever too.

[dipshit]

Very true...I have lights on high beam,

Which kind of proves scumdog's point...
"New Zealand drivers are pathetic when it comes to their ability (inability?), mostly it's all about 'me' and feck the rest of youz."

It's funny how it's always "everybody else out there is stupid" in these threads.

[NighthawkNZ]

It's funny how it's always "everybody else out there is stupid".

Stupid does... stupid do...

I suppose that would go well with NighthawkNZ being "bold" in the carpark - maybe someone was trying to bowl a maiden over!

meh what ever... who gives a fuck about my spelling... but BTW, I was speaking Dangerees Language know...

[Hitcher]

I nearly got bold over in the Warehouse carpark the other day..i

Better than being italicised. (Shudders...)

[scumdog]

Better than being italicised. (Shudders...)

Like "Whatsa amatta you, hey, why you looka so sad...." sort of italicised???:confused:

[Dave Lobster]

Dave, can I please ask how the HELL you know you are somewhere with a high proportion of Asian drivers? Are you constantly looking in each car or do you 'just know'? I'd be more worried about every other driver thinking "why does that tosser have his lights on full?" and not paying full attention to the road because of that!


I live in Auckland. Far more asians per head of population than say.. Orewa - Where there's only a handful.

I don't have my main beam on ALL the time. Just when I'm in the city, and when filtering. There's no need to have it on all the time. But if the difference between my headlight catching someone's eye in their mirror and not, I'll take the chance of them seeing me.
I don't ride like a cock, tailgating people with my main beam on, or forcing them out of the way. FFS, most family saloon cars are far faster than my bike - it's not as if I've got a speed advantage over them or anything like that.

[Edbear]

Like "Whatsa amatta you, hey, why you looka so sad...." sort of italicised???:confused:

Nah, that's speechmarked. "Bold" in Hitcher's post was both bold AND italicised, and to top it all of, was in RED!!!!

So never put yourself in a position to be emboldened, italicised and red! You'll never live it down... :no:

[Grahameeboy]

Which kind of proves scumdog's point...
"New Zealand drivers are pathetic when it comes to their ability (inability?), mostly it's all about 'me' and feck the rest of youz."

It's funny how it's always "everybody else out there is stupid".

Not stupid....there is however a no responsibility attitude here....ACC being one example...

Land Transport have a lot to answer by inadequate education in the past and ineffective adverts...classic eg.."Indicate for 3 secs before moving" is not much time and there is no where saying that you must not cause someone to serve, stop etc...they just expect the other person to get out of the way...

Number of times a driver has forced themselves into my lane knowing I am there....attitude...

[Edbear]

I live in Auckland. Far more asians per head of population than say.. Orewa - Where there's only a handful.

I don't have my main beam on ALL the time. Just when I'm in the city, and when filtering. There's no need to have it on all the time. But if the difference between my headlight catching someone's eye in their mirror and not, I'll take the chance of them seeing me.
I don't ride like a cock, tailgating people with my main beam on, or forcing them out of the way. FFS, most family saloon cars are far faster than my bike - it's not as if I've got a speed advantage over them or anything like that.

Yeah, in Orewa we have... shhhh! Old people... :shifty:

[Swoop]

Nah, that's speechmarked. "Bold" in Hitcher's post was both bold AND italicised, and to top it all of, was in RED!!!!

So never put yourself in a position to be emboldened, italicised and red! You'll never live it down... :no:

Live dangerously!

[Grahameeboy]

I
And as for all you riders who think it is a good idea to ride with your headlights on full at all times, you piss me off the most. It may make you more visible, but you irritate the living shit out of every other road user - other motorcyclists included. I don't know which is worse - having one behind you in the distance, which is really distracting, or having one approach you and dazzle you.


And Graemeeboy - why do you want to have your bike made a focal point? Isn't target fixation a bad thing? "Ooh, looky, a bright shiny bike - whoops, just ran it over!"

.

Being more visible has to be more important...not sure how ii can be annoying...but if it makes drivers stop and think?

Given a choice between low beam and less visibility and high beam and more the choice is a no brainer....drivers will live being annoyed...I may not..

I meant that the running lights help create a perception of speed by being apart.

[Grahameeboy]

Yeah, in Orewa we have... shhhh! Old people... :shifty:

Really........................

[Dave Lobster]

Number of times a driver has forced themselves into my lane knowing I am there....attitude...

That's what your boot is for. Not to 'kick' them, but to 'deflect' them.

[Grahameeboy]

That's what your boot is for. Not to 'kick' them, but to 'deflect' them.

I don't adopt that type of thing......

[Edbear]

Really........................

Yours truly excepted, of course....:third:

[Beemer]

I don't adopt that type of thing......

No, you'd obviously rather have them look at you and think "what a wanker, driving with his lights on full, wish I had a bloody tank and I'd run the prick over" instead.

And Hitcher's thing about italicised bold has gone right over your heads - I think he meant being bold in the car park - as in, doing something a little naughty... hey, at least I got it!

[Edbear]

No, you'd obviously rather have them look at you and think "what a wanker, driving with his lights on full, wish I had a bloody tank and I'd run the prick over" instead.

And Hitcher's thing about italicised bold has gone right over your heads - I think he meant being bold in the car park - as in, doing something a little naughty... hey, at least I got it!

I'm not bold enough to be naughty in a car park...:no:

[sunhuntin]

i use my high beam when riding in high density before/after work traffic. also use around schools when the kids are out. ive found that this has stopped many vehicles, including school buses, from pulling out on top of me a number of times. soon as im clear of the traffic, the beam goes back to dip.

[icekiwi]

Your all missing the point....
Cut all the blaardy trees down!!

[Grahameeboy]

No, you'd obviously rather have them look at you and think "what a wanker, driving with his lights on full, wish I had a bloody tank and I'd run the prick over" instead.

And Hitcher's thing about italicised bold has gone right over your heads - I think he meant being bold in the car park - as in, doing something a little naughty... hey, at least I got it!

Correct, I would rather they "look at me" and if they think I am a wanker etc that is cool with me...means I ride on safe....

[Headbanger]

You guys should all try the obscenely loud pipes approach........

[MotoGirl]

There are other things they could address: ...what to do when your car skids, etc etc etc.

You are right. Something as simple as learning to handle a vehicle could be taught from when young dickey first gets his licence. Anyone who saw the latest episode of Top Gear would have seen that the Finns have to spend (something like) six driving lessons on a skid pad.

Why bikers do a basic skills handling test yet drivers don't is just mind boggling to me. :oi-grr:

[Dave Lobster]

You guys should all try the obscenely loud pipes approach........

I'd love a loud pipe for my commuter bike. You can't get them though.. :(

I sometimes follow a big twin through the traffic (and he's got loudish pipes). Amazing how much more of a gap opens up for him.

We had a B-king last week, while our bike was in for servicing. WAY too quiet with standard pipes on. Just as invisible as the scooter..

[Max Preload]

i use my high beam when riding in high density before/after work traffic. also use around schools when the kids are out. ive found that this has stopped many vehicles, including school buses, from pulling out on top of me a number of times.

Interesting. I use my headlight on low beam to prevent being attacked by bears. Seems to work flawlessly - I've never been attacked.

[vifferman]

I sometimes follow a big twin through the traffic (and he's got loudish pipes). Amazing how much more of a gap opens up for him.
And I've been communtering by car and got a hell of a fright when a loud bike has suddenly materialised right beside me. The noise doesn't necessarily carry well in all directions.

[Dave Lobster]

And I've been communtering by car and got a hell of a fright when a loud bike has suddenly materialised right beside me. The noise doesn't necessarily carry well in all directions.

Some people just ride like cocks.. Would it have given you as much of a fright if it had just 'appeared' next to you?

[Marmoot]

If 110kph is likely to result in death and destruction, then 100 is too.

FFS stop giving THEM ideas! We'd soon be moving at a standstill.

Green Party: "Here's an idea, let's ban petrol and cars"
Labour Party: "Jolly good! It'll solve our spiralling cost, importation, traffic woes, and road tolls too!"
Public: "Hail Caesar! Hail! Hail!"

[MaxB]

You are right. Something as simple as learning to handle a vehicle could be taught from when young dickey first gets his licence. Anyone who saw the latest episode of Top Gear would have seen that the Finns have to spend (something like) six driving lessons on a skid pad.

Why bikers do a basic skills handling test yet drivers don't is just mind boggling to me. :oi-grr:

Agreed. I saw that Top Gear. They are on a restricted for 3 years, do skid pan training, night driving, motorway driving etc. Puts us to shame.

So the Finns have a 120kmh speed limit, highly trained drivers, lower accident rates than NZ in truly shitty weather and have heaps more world motorsprort champions than us. Hmm

[Grahameeboy]

Interesting. I use my headlight on low beam to prevent being attacked by bears. Seems to work flawlessly - I've never been attacked.

Thats cause there are no bears in Auckland anymore....last one was in Devonport years ago

[phoenixgtr]

There are 2 problems with NZ drivers:
1. Our attitudes (and I'm saying "our" cause I am a NZ driver). We think it's our right to drive, not privelige. We don't care about others on the road and we drive however we feel like it, oh and we're all brilliant drivers. Personally, I try to separate myself from this attitude.
2. Driver training. It's apalling that someone can get right the way through their licence, from learner to full, without ever having to do any driver training. It's no wonder the average NZer has the driving skill of a drumming gorilla!! We need to take a leaf out of the Finnish book and have proper advanced driver training. If you can't control a car in a slide, etc., then you can't have a licence. See ya later.

[MSTRS]

There are 2 problems with NZ drivers:


You speak for yourself. Now - get outa my way, sheepshagger....

[HenryDorsetCase]

Tthe average NZer has the driving skill of a drumming gorilla!!

Hey: no more insults to the bloody gorillas, OK? That gorilla on the drums has a great sense of rhythm, and timing and is co ordinating using all his hands and feet at the same time: your average NZ driver is utterly incapable of doing either.

Don't make me get all Sigourney Weaver* on your ass!








*Sigourney W in Alien and Aliens = badass, and also starred in "Gorillas in the mist" the Diane Fossey Bio-pic.

[Headbanger]

Great stuff.

I'll take the bike out this arvo, I'll pull up beside cars and my loud as hell pipes to get their attention, They will look to see wtf all the noise is about, and I'll blind the fuckers with my high beam.


Muhahahahahaha.

[Spyke]

Actually, unfortunately, there is some truth to this.
Kinetic energy (a fair measure of how much you smash yourself up when you hit) = half M times V squared.
i.e. it's proportional to the square of your speed.
Brakes tyres etc are closer to linear when it comes to disposing of Kinetic energy. What this means is that you have to ditch quite a bit more energy to lose 10 kph at 100 kph than you do to lose 10 kph at 50 kph, but your brakes can't allow for the difference.
To put this another way, slowing from 100 to 90 requires the loss of more energy than slowing from 50 to 40 (a lot more actually).
It also explains why your brakes appear to be more effective at lower speeds.
So it's sad but true that an extra 10 kph can make a disproportionate difference to how hard you hit.

true but when your bike/car is exceptional at stopping quickly from over 200kmph it shouldn't really matter. And if your alert you can get on the brakes that much quicker anyway rendering the less alert and slower person in more danger than you anyway?

[dipshit]

Not stupid....there is however a no responsibility attitude here....ACC being one example...

Land Transport have a lot to answer by inadequate education in the past and ineffective adverts...classic eg.."Indicate for 3 secs before moving" is not much time and there is no where saying that you must not cause someone to serve, stop etc...they just expect the other person to get out of the way...

Number of times a driver has forced themselves into my lane knowing I am there....attitude...


And I think you would find that the road code states that you must dip your headlight when close to other traffic.

[Jantar]

...Number of times a driver has forced themselves into my lane knowing I am there....attitude...
But if you have your lights on high beam there's a very good chance that the driver doesn't know you are there.

Dipshit makes a good point about the road code forbidding the use of high beam when near other vehicles, and the reason for that is because high beam masks everything in the eyes of the driver who tries to look at it.

[wbks]

OMG. No way

Cause like the difference between 100 and 110 is like gliding to a stop or smashing into a brick wall!

-IndyActually, the difference between each km/h does increase steadily as you start getting closer to 100km/h. It's not quite like a crash at 200 will do double the damage done at 100 (it'll do worse), and so the difference between 100 and 110 for example is actually quite a lot. Everyone sits on 110 though, and thats why they target this speed. If they only advertised 260 as dangerous what difference would it make?

[Headbanger]

If they only advertised 260 as dangerous what difference would it make?

I swear to never take my HD up to 260km'h.

[wbks]

The point was most people pretty much never go over 110-120, but they do constantly cruse at 110.

[MSTRS]

The point was most people pretty much never go over 110-120, but they do constantly cruse at 110.

Not round here, they don't. 85 to 90 is about it. Bastards. They cause a lot of frustration because it is exceedingly difficult to pass them.
And the talk of speeds 200+ isn't relevant - there is no way that those speeds can be done without HUGE risk. But no-one will ever convince me that 110 (or 120) is dangerous on, say, the Rangitikei plains between Taupo and Napier. Unless of course it's foggy or something...

[Forest]

I just checked the plates.co.nz website.


2QK4U

This Premium plate has already been snapped up, so have another go and try again.

:laugh:

[Gubb]

Don't say Sorry to me. Say Sorry to his kids!

[zzzbang]

how is it that technology is always improving but the speedlimit stays the same over all these years? can it really be that the average person cant handle anything over 100km/h? "my brains are confussed by the quickened moving objects"?:weird:

[zzzbang]

Personally, I try to separate myself from this attitude.


good on you, i try to do the same, but usually when you show some courtesy towards other drivers they shove it in your face and just behave like fools anyway.

[spudchucka]

Just heard a new one on the radio. Goes something like...
Dad always drives pretty fast, so we got him the perfect plate 2QK4U. Then we got a call from the cops. They'd found him dead, wrapped around a tree. They said he'd been doing 110kph. It's true what they say about the bigger mess.


110kph? No reference to sort of road.
WHAT A CROCK OF SHIT!!!

There should be some law against trees.

[James Deuce]

how is it that technology is always improving but the speedlimit stays the same over all these years? can it really be that the average person cant handle anything over 100km/h? "my brains are confussed by the quickened moving objects"?:weird:
The average person can't handle anything over 12 km/hr. Go faster than that and you are in planning mode. You're not built to deal with stuff faster than that while retaining the ability to react instantly and consistently.

Yes, your brain is confused and it starts leaving things out. That's why people pull out in front of trains and bikes.

[zzzbang]

The average person can't handle anything over 12 km/hr. Go faster than that and you are in planning mode. You're not built to deal with stuff faster than that while retaining the ability to react instantly and consistently.

Yes, your brain is confused and it starts leaving things out. That's why people pull out in front of trains and bikes.

i guess its a good explanation. but, what i was thinking is that as technology improves you require less reaction time to correct your mistakes without causing an incident, also since there is better technology it is to a degree reasonable to assume you will be traveling at a lesser risk than before (more stable and reliable vehicles e.x.). so, holding all other variables constant, with an increasing level of technology the speed limit could be raised without increasing incidents (thats assuming your actually paying attention to your surroundings) ... but i guess theres alot of other influencing factors so making a conclusion like this wouldnt be plausible without looking a little closer.

other considerations: what is the acceptable level of incidents? and what is the minimum speed that we find acceptable to travel at? (at 12km/h we would be going nowhere fast with an assumed zero incident rate)

being human with all its morals and ethics and socially acceptable levels.. sigh

[Grahameeboy]

But if you have your lights on high beam there's a very good chance that the driver doesn't know you are there.

Dipshit makes a good point about the road code forbidding the use of high beam when near other vehicles, and the reason for that is because high beam masks everything in the eyes of the driver who tries to look at it.

I accept you have a valid point...cannot argue but the road code is a guide and there is plenty to show that it is safer...iny miny miny mo

[MSTRS]

I accept you have a valid point...cannot argue but the road code is a guide and there is plenty to show that it is safer...iny miny miny mo

Nope. The road code is more than a guide. It is the law/s. I accept that some of it may not be the safest for bikes, but you takes your chances with a ticket as opposed to being 'right' but dead. If everyone followed the letter of the law, all would be well. But they don't.

[Ixion]

Dad always drives pretty fast, so we got him the perfect plate 2QK4U. Then we got a call from the cops. They'd found him dead, wrapped around a tree. They said he'd been doing 110kph. It's true what they say about the bigger mess.



I don't see the relevance. I have EXACTLY the same problem with trees every time I try going off road. The bloody things jump out in front of you. Impossible to avoid them even at 30 kph , let alone 110. I reckon the tree should be charged with manslaughter.

[Dave Lobster]

I reckon the tree should be charged with manslaughter.


Had the rabble have won the election, that would have been a distinct possibility!!

[Max Preload]

I accept you have a valid point...cannot argue but the road code is a guide and there is plenty to show that it is safer...iny miny miny mo

The 'Road Code' is a guide to the regulations, and the regulations clearly state:


Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 (SR 2004/427) (as at 01 August 2008) (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM303647.html)

8.3 Use of motor vehicle lighting equipment on road
(1) A person must not use vehicle lighting equipment in such a way that it dazzles, confuses, or distracts so as to endanger the safety of other road users.
(2) If a vehicle's headlamps are in use, a driver must dip those headlamps—
(a) whenever they would be likely to interfere adversely with the vision of another driver in motion on a road

You surely can't argue that a main-beam in the eyes at any time doesn't do exactly that. So not only is stupid, it is also a $150 infringement offence ($1000 maximum on summary conviction).

[Dave Lobster]

Presumably fog lights are covered by that law?

About 75% of the population drive around with those on all the time.

[Grahameeboy]

Nope. The road code is more than a guide. It is the law/s. I accept that some of it may not be the safest for bikes, but you takes your chances with a ticket as opposed to being 'right' but dead. If everyone followed the letter of the law, all would be well. But they don't.

I disagree..some of the rules make no sense...like the 3 sec indicate and move rule....even the 2 sec rule is hard to work out...cannot be that hot a guide judging by driving standards

[Grahameeboy]

The 'Road Code' is a guide to the regulations, and the regulations clearly state:



You surely can't argue that a main-beam in the eyes at any time doesn't do exactly that. So not only is stupid, it is also a $150 infringement offence ($1000 maximum on summary conviction).

At night maybe...so if I am stupid but I find I am seen more then I will accept that and no tickets so far....

[Max Preload]

Presumably fog lights are covered by that law?

About 75% of the population drive around with those on all the time.

They are indeed. I can't stand those wankers.

[BigG]

Well well well you all no it's not the speed that kills it's the sudden stop when you hit sumat eh!:weep:

[Indiana_Jones]

Nope. The road code is more than a guide. It is the law/s. I accept that some of it may not be the safest for bikes, but you takes your chances with a ticket as opposed to being 'right' but dead. If everyone followed the letter of the law, all would be well. But they don't.

70kph on the motorway for a learner does sound well to me lol

But they're changing that arn't they? About fucking time!

-Indy

[MSTRS]

I disagree..some of the rules make no sense...like the 3 sec indicate and move rule....even the 2 sec rule is hard to work out...cannot be that hot a guide judging by driving standards

What do you disagree with? Now you are saying 'rules' instead of guide. Rule = law. And what is hard to understand about the 2sec rule etc...can't you count? Where is it written that laws mean standards will be high? Are you saying that because people kill others then the law about not killing is not very good?
You, sir, are a most contradictory chap.

[ducatilover]

It's all a load of cobblers! skiddy can stop a zxr from 60kph in 2 meters, we should learn from him. I'm not going to tell people to do 110kph, that my friends is silly, you will die! SINNER! SATANS REBEL SON! THOU SHALT NOT DO 109.9999KPH
YOU WILL HIT A TREE!!!!!

I'm fucked then:zzzz:

[Grahameeboy]

What do you disagree with? Now you are saying 'rules' instead of guide. Rule = law. And what is hard to understand about the 2sec rule etc...can't you count? Where is it written that laws mean standards will be high? Are you saying that because people kill others then the law about not killing is not very good?
You, sir, are a most contradictory chap.

And you sound like JRandom with word definitions....Sir...:apint:....can we agree on "Road Code"..:baby:...and yes I can be contrary....

[Max Preload]

Now you are saying 'rules' instead of guide. Rule = law. And what is hard to understand about the 2sec rule etc...

Actually, to be a pedantic prick once again, the 2 second rule is only a guide. The rule is here (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM303092.html#DLM303092). The following distances are at least 40% greater (in some cases 70%) under the 2 second guide than is actually required.

[MSTRS]

I say again, what is difficult about the 2 second rule. When I learned to ride/drive...it was 1 car length per 10mph. What size car? What if you had no depth perception?

[peasea]

Hells-bells, in that case I'm lucky to be alive!!:shit:

But you never speed, remember???

[SPman]

I say again, what is difficult about the 2 second rule. When I learned to ride/drive...it was 1 car length per 10mph. What size car? What if you had no depth perception?
So, as an outsider, traffic on the motorway generally travels at 10mph!

[scumdog]

But you never speed, remember???

Oh but that's NOW.:innocent:

Back when I was a freezing worker etc things were a bit different.:woohoo:

But back then I didn't know exceding 110kph would result in instant death...

[peasea]

Oh but that's NOW.:innocent:

Back when I was a freezing worker etc things were a bit different.:woohoo:

But back then I didn't know exceding 110kph would result in instant death...

Yes, well, all my speeding offences are in the past............

A freezing worker eh? Those outside winter jobs are tough huh?

[yungatart]

But back then I didn't know exceding 110kph would result in instant death...

Its amazing what you can get away with when you have no idea of the consequences, eh?

[peasea]

Its amazing what you can get away with when you have no idea of the consequences, eh?

Or you know that the mantra 'speed kills' is a load of bollocks. Doing stupid things kills people, like going too fast in the wet (regardless of the legal limit). 100kph is dangerous at times and in some places but you can't tell me pulling 120 on the Desert Road or on straight stretches through Arthurs Pass is going to kill people. It's bollocks I say, bollocks.

[scumdog]

Or you know that the mantra 'speed kills' is a load of bollocks. Doing stupid things kills people, like going too fast in the wet (regardless of the legal limit). 100kph is dangerous at times and in some places but you can't tell me pulling 120 on the Desert Road or on straight stretches through Arthurs Pass is going to kill people. It's bollocks I say, bollocks.

Yup, you think 120kph on the Desert Road is OK.

Just like Mr Dimwit thinks 85kph in a 50kph area in town is OK.

One of you might be right - but the other one would be paying for it I guess....:crazy:

[peasea]

Yup, you think 120kph on the Desert Road is OK.

Just like Mr Dimwit thinks 85kph in a 50kph area in town is OK.

One of you might be right - but the other one would be paying for it I guess....:crazy:

You've been smoking too many southern stalks bro. Of course 85 in a 50 is b/s, like 100 in a 100 in peak hour is daft. You know what I'm on about, don't be difficult.

[Edbear]

Yup, you think 120kph on the Desert Road is OK.

Just like Mr Dimwit thinks 85kph in a 50kph area in town is OK.

One of you might be right - but the other one would be paying for it I guess....:crazy:

That's the point, really. For Peasea and others who can ride/drive and have demonstrated their ability for years - not trying to boast, but I've been riding bikes since I was 12 years old and have done speeds over 200km/h and I've yet to have an accident - the majority of people on the roads, it seems, are, to coin a book title, "unsafe at any speed".

The fact is that the law has an arbitrary limit that is enforced and we have to accept that, or stay off the roads.

I would, though, prefer to see much more effort via the media advertising by the Police targetting bad habits and innattention, rather than outright speed.

People are thick and you have to use blunt instruments with much force to get the message across... "PAY ATTENTION TO THE ROAD WHEN YOU ARE BEHIND THE WHEEL! NOT YOUR CELLPHONE!!!"

[scumdog]

You've been smoking too many southern stalks bro. Of course 85 in a 50 is b/s, like 100 in a 100 in peak hour is daft. You know what I'm on about, don't be difficult.


Sadly a lot are too thick to pick the 'right' place for ANY speed, hence the rest of us have to suffer laws that attempt to keep those thick ones from getting to exhuberant...and you know that's what I was meaning...

[peasea]

Sadly a lot are too thick to pick the 'right' place for ANY speed, hence the rest of us have to suffer laws that attempt to keep those thick ones from getting to exhuberant...and you know that's what I was meaning...

Aha, added mind reading to your long list of can-do's huh?

How about singing us some country numbers???

"Del-ta dawn, what's that Harley that's gone wrong
Could it be an oil leak that's gone by...
And did I hear you say, he was speedin' here today
To take you to his workshop in the sky.........."

Or something.

[scumdog]

Aha, added mind reading to your long list of can-do's huh?

How about singing us some country numbers???

"Del-ta dawn, what's that Harley that's gone wrong
Could it be an oil leak that's gone by...
And did I hear you say, he was speedin' here today
To take you to his workshop in the sky.........."

Or something.

Now whose smokin' WHAT???

[peasea]

Now whose smokin' WHAT???


Don't look at me officer, grow your own.:bleh:

[FJRider]

Yup, you think 120kph on the Desert Road is OK.

Just like Mr Dimwit thinks 85kph in a 50kph area in town is OK.

One of you might be right - but the other one would be paying for it I guess....:crazy:

I drove the Ambulance in Waiouru quite a few times to accidents on THAT Desert road. Brought back bodies that were travelling a lot less than 120 km/hr.

It only takes one oil slip, one pot hole, one idiot on the wrong side of the road...and one of numerous "other"...one's ..

[MSTRS]

It's a matter of time and place. Risk management. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
The thinking rider/driver tends to survive.
Fuck the "110kph kills".

[saxet]

I drove the Ambulance in Waiouru quite a few times to accidents on THAT Desert road. Brought back bodies that were travelling a lot less than 120 km/hr.

It only takes one oil slip, one pot hole, one idiot on the wrong side of the road...and one of numerous "other"...one's ..

Yeah thats true but if youré gonna look at it that way perhaps the speed limit should be brought down to 50k.Or just don't step outside.
You know that no one has ever died from going too fast...it's the stopping that does it.

[spudchucka]

You know that no one has ever died from going too fast...it's the stopping that does it.

But since you can't achieve one without first indulging in the other the above statement is illogical.

[saxet]

But since you can't achieve one without first indulging in the other the above statement is illogical.

Not so illogical when you consider that the fasted a humen has travelled is in space ships but none have died due to the speed they go..The phrase speed kills as a stand alone comment is illogical.

[spudchucka]

Not so illogical when you consider that the fasted a humen has travelled is in space ships but none have died due to the speed they go..The phrase speed kills as a stand alone comment is illogical.

That statement is just as illogical as your previous one but you can't deny the physics, you just can't come to a sudden stop without first attaining some velocity.

[saxet]

you just can't come to a sudden stop without first attaining some velocity.

Correct, brings up the speed for the conditions issue however a person wishes to define that.

I take it the humor mixed with truth did'nt work.

It seems logic itself is a debatable issue
I lost a friend awhile back who was the most safety aware rider I've known.At the court case, as only the other driver lived, his word had to be accepted. Somewhere along the line SOMEONE made a fatal mistake.Speed was not involved.
Some people seem to be saying they have perfect driving, riding habits at all times but absolutley none of us are perfect..myself included.
As far as I can see it's about TRYING to manage the risks AS BEST AS POSSIBLE but even that is no guarantee of safety.
Life is not safe and even the safe can suffer.

[FJRider]

At the court case, as only the other driver lived, his word had to be accepted. Somewhere along the line SOMEONE made a fatal mistake.Speed was not involved.

Some people seem to be saying they have perfect driving, riding habits at all times but absolutley none of us are perfect..myself included.

As far as I can see it's about TRYING to manage the risks AS BEST AS POSSIBLE but even that is no guarantee of safety.
Life is not safe and even the safe can suffer.


:yes::yes::yes::yes::yes::yes::yes::yes::yes:


Speed is more often a factor... not the cause...

[davebullet]

Apparently after the advert the family in question traded in the plate for:
2DED4U

[saxet]

Speed is more often a factor... not the cause...
__________________
One of the big mistakes in life, is the belief that you wont make one...

Two of the best comments I've seen all week.

[Hitcher]

Speed is more often a factor


Speed is more than a "factor", it's a necessity. Movement is a necessary precursor for almost all accidents and mishaps involving motor vehicles.

[peasea]

Speed is more than a "factor", it's a necessity. Movement is a necessary precursor for almost all accidents and mishaps involving motor vehicles.

Couldn't agree more. I always chuckle when the cops say "speed was involved" or "speed was a factor", how else could an object collide with another object without at least one of them attaining some level of speed?

I also mock those who claim their "vehicle lost control". Vehicles don't lose control, people do.

"Almost all..." ?? I'd go further than that. I can't think of any way an MVA could be classed as such without some sort of movement from one or more objects. Otherwise everything's parked up isn't it?

[peasea]

I drove the Ambulance in Waiouru quite a few times to accidents on THAT Desert road. Brought back bodies that were travelling a lot less than 120 km/hr.

It only takes one oil slip, one pot hole, one idiot on the wrong side of the road...and one of numerous "other"...one's ..

I'm not saying it's safe to pull 120 on the DR all the time. I've been up there in shocking conditions and dropped down to about 50kph! Sunny day, straight stretch? Nowt wrong with 120.

Good on you for your work, by the way.

[Mikkel]

Of course 85 in a 50 is b/s, like 100 in a 100 in peak hour is daft.

For crying out loud, the whole point here is that you can't just generalise about anything when it comes to speed versus conditions and time & place.

I am aware that there's going to be some people who have the head so far up their own arses that they are going to disagree here, but there are times and places where 85 km/h (or 200 km/h for that fucking matter) in a 50 km/h zone is perfectly safe (well, as far as safe goes in this life anyway). Exempli gratia: the causeway to Sumner here in Chch at 3 am on a still tuesday night. It's straight, flat, illuminated, no side roads, etc., etc.
100 in a 100 during peak hour isn't daft if you live Mayfield for fucks sake... surely it can not be that hard to see that you always have to evaluate the whole of whatever situation you are in.

No cancel that - shit like this just shows us exactly why we actually need speed limits. People say they are thinking for themselves, instead the generalise because they are fucking lazy and settle at the wrong conclusions.

[peasea]

For crying out loud, the whole point here is that you can't just generalise about anything when it comes to speed versus conditions and time & place.

I am aware that there's going to be some people who have the head so far up their own arses that they are going to disagree here, but there are times and places where 85 km/h (or 200 km/h for that fucking matter) in a 50 km/h zone is perfectly safe (well, as far as safe goes in this life anyway). Exempli gratia: the causeway to Sumner here in Chch at 3 am on a still tuesday night. It's straight, flat, illuminated, no side roads, etc., etc.
100 in a 100 during peak hour isn't daft if you live Mayfield for fucks sake... surely it can not be that hard to see that you always have to evaluate the whole of whatever situation you are in.

No cancel that - shit like this just shows us exactly why we actually need speed limits. People say they are thinking for themselves, instead the generalise because they are fucking lazy and settle at the wrong conclusions.

Perhaps I should have said "100kph in dense traffic standing on your seat facing backwards in peak hour is daft".

My bad.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Perhaps I should have said "100kph in dense traffic standing on your seat facing backwards in peak hour is daft".

My bad.

Yeah, if traffic is dense you should at least face forwards.

[Mikkel]

Perhaps I should have said "100kph in dense traffic standing on your seat facing backwards in peak hour is daft".

My bad.

No worries, except if the dense traffic is actually going faster than you - then keeping an eye on what comes up from behind is a good idea ;)

On another note, if there is but one car within 200 meters of you in Mayfield during the rush hour, that would constitute dense traffic... :yes:


Yeah, if traffic is dense you should at least face forwards.

Sometimes a wheelie helps to get a better perspective of what happens up ahead. Never forget that.

[peasea]

On another note, if there is but one car within 200 meters of you in Mayfield during the rush hour, that would constitute dense traffic...

Because to live there you need to be dense?

[saxet]

Speed is more than a "factor", it's a necessity. Movement is a necessary precursor for almost all accidents and mishaps involving motor vehicles.

Alomst true but vehicles,humans and most times a road are also necessity.The phrase speed kills is a simplified statement to get across an idea but it is a simplification. Any further anaylisis of speed as a factor in traffic accidents normally brings us to speed for the conditions. It is possible to be involved in a traffic accident while stationary.
There is absolutely no denying speed is a major cause of accidents
It seems that "People Kill" is just as relevent a statement.

[scumdog]

Alomst true but vehicles,humans and most times a road are also necessity.The phrase speed kills is a simplified statement to get across an idea but it is a simplification. Any further anaylisis of speed as a factor in traffic accidents normally brings us to speed for the conditions. It is possible to be involved in a traffic accident while stationary.
There is absolutely no denying speed is a major cause of accidents
It seems that "People Kill" is just as relevent a statement.

I would say "Idiot Losers Kill" is a better slogan...<_<.

[MSTRS]

... It is possible to be involved in a traffic accident while stationary....

One of the parties, maybe. Otherwise all that is left is opening a door against the vehicle parked beside you.

[scumdog]

Somewhere along the line SOMEONE made a fatal mistake.Speed was not involved..

Oh yes there was, had to be SOME speed by one or both parties.

Otherwise your mate might still be alive.

Wouldn't have to be exceding the 'speed limit' of course but still had to be some form of 'speed'....

[Mom]

I made a return trip Warkworth to Thames yesterday, a round trip of 355kms. Took the car as I had to transport my Mommy to and from the doctors. I would have to state catagorically that the de facto speed limit on the open road in NZ is 80kph. Completely pathetic! The odd time the speed was nearing 100kph a cop would be seen by him upfront and the whole queue of cars would be back to 80. Miles of double yellows prevent overtaking in very safe places so you are stuck. No big surprises that people get pissed off and overtake in stupid places.

Creeping along at 80 on the Hauraki Plains beggars belief, I took every opportunity to get in front of these dawdlers and even then was hard pressed to get anywhere near to 110kpm while overtaking. Therer are heaps of roadside warnings about speed, reminding us to slow down, speeding is not on and the like, chance would have been a fine thing is all I can say!

Pity my Mom is not well enough to ride pillion eh :laugh:

[Edbear]

That statement is just as illogical as your previous one but you can't deny the physics, you just can't come to a sudden stop without first attaining some velocity.

Yep! That was my thought after walking into the door jamb...


Yeah, if traffic is dense you should at least face forwards.

Especially when both traffic and driver's are dense...

[Ocean1]

Movement is a necessary precursor for almost all accidents and mishaps involving motor vehicles.

'Snot.

I've been practicing.

Got it sussed. <_<

[Edbear]

'Snot.

I've been practicing.

Got it sussed. <_<

You mean like when I alighted from the bike without putting the side-stand down....?

[Ocean1]

You mean like when I alighted from the bike without putting the side-stand down....?

Fookin' amatuer, I've elevated it to an artform.

Still, gotta start somewhere I s'pose.

[Max Preload]

Thats cause there are no bears in Auckland anymore....last one was in Devonport years ago

Are you sure about that, because like I say I've yet to be attacked by any bears and I've concluded that it is my headlight being on high beam...

[Ixion]

Speed is more than a "factor", it's a necessity. Movement is a necessary precursor for almost all accidents and mishaps involving motor vehicles.

That does not apply when kick starters are involved.

[Grahameeboy]

Are you sure about that, because like I say I've yet to be attacked by any bears and I've concluded that it is my headlight being on high beam...

Yes there was a bear kept behind a wall of a house on Queen's Parade.

No. I have succombed to criticism...for now...and riding on dipped beam...I recently replaced the bulb running lights with LED white lights..which actually look blue and seems to make me more noticeable...

[Beemer]

Just realised - belatedly - that this father lives down our road! No bull! Not the actual guy in the ad, as he's obviously an actor, but the REAL guy this ad was based on!

Guy down the road and his wife think they own the road. We live on a narrow country road with no lane markings, and while technically it IS a 100kph road, very few people travel along it at that speed, certainly not in every part of the road - it's more like 80kph max. In parts there are ditches and culverts on the side of the road, in others banks or drop offs, and everywhere there is a thin edge of gravel and grass, no wide shoulder. Aside from these two - who are aged about the same as the couple in the ad - everyone who sees an approaching vehicle slows down as there is no margin for error.

This guy does not - and recently while we were at a complete stop waiting until he passed us (he was coming towards us) before we could turn into our driveway, he went past at 100kph and flicked up gravel and cracked our windscreen. That was annoying enough, but coming home on Sunday we again saw him coming towards us so we moved over until our left wheel was inches from the edge of the road. He was again travelling at full speed and I think both of us actually winced as he flew past inches from our right side.

Monday night we had a neighbourhood support meeting so when it finished I took him aside and asked if he could possibly slow down when approaching other vehicles. Well, you can imagine that went down like a lead balloon!

“I’ve had to listen to YOU, now you have to listen to me. Everyone in this road needs to learn how to drive. They all drive in the middle of the road and whenever I see them they have about this much (and he spread his arms wide) on the left side of THEIR vehicle and I am forced to run off into the gravel. When I saw you yesterday you had at least that much on the left of you.” I was stunned and said “well, I don’t drive down the middle of the road and we were right on the edge of the road yesterday.” He then said whenever he was following us and we were turning into our driveway, he had to slow to about 20kph and that if he had vehicles behind him when he was turning he pulled over to let them pass. (Although I doubt very much he would ever have anyone behind him when he is turning as he lives about 100m from the dead end of our road, he also lives on a part of the road with wide grass verges where they graze cattle whereas we have a bank and a culvert either side of our part of the road!) I said at least four of the people in the street – who were all older than me – had expressed their concerns to me about his driving so it wasn’t just me being sensitive. I also said his son had crashed not long after we moved in here (he lost control on the next corner and took out several metres of fence, ending up in the farmer’s paddock next door – we rang the police and ambulance but he picked him up before they got there and got really shitty about it) but he denied that – selective memory! He said one neighbour's daughter had pulled out in front of him and he had nearly hit her (she hasn't lived here for about 10 years so he obviously holds a grudge), and that another neighbour had actually hit him. “And I don’t speed, it’s a 100kph zone and I don’t go faster than that.” I said to him that it may well be a 100kph zone but it was NOT safe to travel at that speed when approaching an oncoming car.

It was a waste of time talking to him so in the end I said “we’re not getting anywhere here. I’m sorry, I hadn’t realised it was [his name] Road and not [the actual name] Road” and then I called him a wanker and walked off!

I don't know if he sat down and had another think when he got home (or perhaps his wife made him), but for the past two days he appears to be travelling a little slower. He still doesn't slow down for oncoming traffic, but now he does seem to be doing a more reasonable speed.