Demerits for speeding changing?

[marty]

Somethings not working


Injury or fatal crash statistics show increasing numbers of injury/fatal accidents;

2003 10615
2004 10368
2005 10808
2006 11291
2007 12043
2008 11647

It seems we are not crashing less , it could be argued that improved secondary safety such as air bags, a more modern safer fleet etc are saving lives not the lack of crashes.

As for runners idiots or not its tragic when someone gets hurt or injured no matter how misguided their decision at the time.

deaths have reduced. a lot. CBF looking it up.

injury crashes have probably gone up, taking some of the previous fatal stats down - perhaps safer cars (who would have thought mandating safer cars - eg side intrusion) could make a difference

you run, you wear the consequences. i don't see the tragedy.

[Hinny]

According to the authors of this discussion document speed contributed to about a third of deaths on NZ roads.
This is an ambiguous statement that is designed to mislead people into thinking that speeding, as in driving in excess of the speed limit, is responsible for a third of road fatalities. This is clearly not so.
Why do they need to be so subversive?
If they wantr to know what to do to make roads safe why don't they look at countries that have the lowest fatalities and copy their models?
According to their modelling a reduction in the speed limit and active policing with mobile patrols and speed cameras is going to save lives.
Emperical evidence shows that the outcome is the exact opposite.
In the US and Australia the implementation of the 'Speed Kills" program has led to a FIFTY% incrfese in road fatalities.
For these peoploe to produce this document with misleading statemnts to justify failed policies is to display incompetence bordering on criminal negligence.
These people need to be fire before they kill more p[eople.

[Morcs]

Nooo.....that just leads to a situation where if you earn lots of money you can afford to go as fast as you like. It would be like buying the right to speed.

Exactly. If you speed, you pay the consequences in whatever way you can - If you have the money, pay the fine, if you dont, take the demerits.

[p.dath]

Exactly. If you speed, you pay the consequences in whatever way you can - If you have the money, pay the fine, if you dont, take the demerits.

Morcs, we can't have laws working one way for someone, and a different way for someone else. The law has to apply evenly for everybody.

And as for be able to choose the punishment for breaking the rules ... why don't we just add more options like taking Helen Clark out on a date, eating a donut, or kissing John Key - until we have enough options that will allow everyone to choose a punishment they "like".

The thing is, your not meant to like the punishment. That's why it is a deterrent. And the deterrent should be of a similar consequence to everyone. Cash does not create this similarity of consequence. Demerit points do.

[p.dath]

According to the authors of this discussion document speed contributed to about a third of deaths on NZ roads.
This is an ambiguous statement that is designed to mislead people into thinking that speeding, as in driving in excess of the speed limit, is responsible for a third of road fatalities. This is clearly not so.
...

What do you think is the number 1 killer on the roads Hinny? I'm interested in your personal opinion.

The document said speed was a "contributing" factor. It also said alcohol and youth were contributing factors. In fact, it listed several contributing factors. If I recall, many of the accidents involved several factors (hence the "contributing"). I think your portrayal of the document is in itself misleading.

The "discussion" paper (and that is what is was) seemed well balanced for its intention to me. It mearly put forward some views held by the Government, and then invited the public to put forward their opinion.
I hope you put forward your opinion that speed was not responsible for 1/3 of fatalities on the road. I suspect they would agree with you.

[gammaguy]

Well no its not about the money. Same fine no matter what speed you go. But if you get caught doing 120 on a public holiday, you've just lost your licence. Wouldnt that make you watch your speed more?

IF,as they say,it IS about road safety,then this has to be seen as a step in the right direction.

forgive me though,i am a sceptical bastard.so i dont believe them.

[Swoop]

wtf there are plenty of main roads that are stupidly classed as 50kph as they are (hobsonville road, perfect example) let alone dropping them even more.

Have you noticed the additional speed camera positions along that road recently?
Where the fixed "speed measurement device" NOW SLOW thingammy is located (western end before the first fruit shop on the left), the mobile speed camera now likes to park going up the hill (heading west) where people park their car that they are trying to sell.
The beam of the fixed speed measurement device, now aims back towards the mobile camera.
Trying to hide their presence in the beam of the other unit. If anyone has come down the hill (heading East) they can get nicely pinged.

[Morcs]

Have you noticed the additional speed camera positions along that road recently?
Where the fixed "speed measurement device" NOW SLOW thingammy is located (western end before the first fruit shop on the left), the mobile speed camera now likes to park going up the hill (heading west) where people park their car that they are trying to sell.
The beam of the fixed speed measurement device, now aims back towards the mobile camera.
Trying to hide their presence in the beam of the other unit. If anyone has come down the hill (heading East) they can get nicely pinged.

Ah. I did not know this. That hill is a pain. In a car or bike its impossible to go down that hill within the speed limit unless you are on the brakes all the way down. Makes for a nice spot for the oinkers.

[Thani-B]

IF,as they say,it IS about road safety,then this has to be seen as a step in the right direction.

forgive me though,i am a sceptical bastard.so i dont believe them.

I think some of the ideas in that plan are good ones, but Im not really liking this one. If you are driving in an area you dont know, and you didnt see the speed limit change, so for example are going 70 in a 50 area, thats an honest mistake, even though you should have been paying better attention to the signs, but it may cost you your licence. Its just a bit worrying.

[NDORFN]

I think some of the ideas in that plan are good ones, but Im not really liking this one. If you are driving in an area you dont know, and you didnt see the speed limit change, so for example are going 70 in a 50 area, thats an honest mistake, even though you should have been paying better attention to the signs, but it may cost you your licence. Its just a bit worrying.

The richer ones who will be better off fighting charges in court rather than just paying fines will bring to attention inadequacies in things such as signage. The only reason none of the entrapment issues in traffic law enforcement are being raised presently is because anyone who can afford to defend in court is better off just paying the fine.

[p.dath]

I think some of the ideas in that plan are good ones, but Im not really liking this one. If you are driving in an area you dont know, and you didnt see the speed limit change, so for example are going 70 in a 50 area, thats an honest mistake, even though you should have been paying better attention to the signs, but it may cost you your licence. Its just a bit worrying.

I'm starting to think this is a bit of propaganda. Where does it say that going 20km/h of the limit once will cost you your licence?

Just because people keep repeating what once person said doesn't make it true.

[Grahameeboy]

I've been having a read of the Safer Journeys document. There are some very good points in there - none of which will make riding a bike/driving a car on the road any more fun though, but some of the inititaves are pretty behaviour changing! Zero BAC for under 20's and recidivists, demerits on speed and red light cameras, lowering speeding fines for increased demerits (it does not state by how much though), compulsory ABS on all bikes over 600cc from 2015, reducuing speed in urban areas to 30-40km/h, removing the 'no licence but you can ride a scooter' rule. Makes for good reading I reckon. I can't really see anything I wouldn't support to some degree.

http://www.transport.govt.nz/saferjo...Final_ISBN.pdf

I think they would have to consider the 100dm though.

Problem with ABS is this:

Doesn't stop you hitting something.
How would the manufactures feel about this...mmm...well NZ is the only place in the world that demands ASB so we won't sell to NZ...impacts on our economy...

Problem with urban speed limit of 30/40 is that it would upset a few cyclists or would they be immune...otherwise it's a good idea...I mean we all enjoy fun outside urban areas...

What I find odd is that the proposal is to require ABS on bikes over 600cc but still allow us to by a bike with 170bhp....so are they saying that braking kills and not speed now (tongue in cheek).

[Grahameeboy]

I think some of the ideas in that plan are good ones, but Im not really liking this one. If you are driving in an area you dont know, and you didnt see the speed limit change, so for example are going 70 in a 50 area, thats an honest mistake, even though you should have been paying better attention to the signs, but it may cost you your licence. Its just a bit worrying.

Ponsonby Road....lost or not you cannot miss the huge painted speed limit on the road...

[Grahameeboy]

Ah. I did not know this. That hill is a pain. In a car or bike its impossible to go down that hill within the speed limit unless you are on the brakes all the way down. Makes for a nice spot for the oinkers.

That's what ABS is for silly

[Thani-B]

I'm starting to think this is a bit of propaganda. Where does it say that going 20km/h of the limit once will cost you your licence?

Just because people keep repeating what once person said doesn't make it true.

It doesnt. It was just an example I used at the beginning of the thread.
According to this http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/factsheets/33.html these are the current demerits. Which Ive copied below.

Demerit points
Demerit points are given for all speeding infringements other than speed camera offences. If you get a total of 100 or more within two years, you'll be suspended from driving for three months.

Speed ---- Demerit points
Exceeding the speed limit by up to 10 km/h ---- 10
Exceeding the speed limit by 11-20 km/h ---- 20
Exceeding the speed limit by 21-30 km/h ---- 35
Exceeding the speed limit by 31-35 km/h ---- 40
Exceeding the speed limit by 36 km/h or more ---- 50


Ok so 20 was wrong. Lets make that 21. The copper said they would double. So that makes the demerits for going 21km/h over the limit 70. And on public holidays, they are going to double again. So thats 140. If they keep the total at 100 that just means you lost your licence if you were doing 71 in a 50 area on a public holiday. Thats all I was saying.