Demerits for speeding changing?

**NDORFN** · 29th September 2009, 17:47

Originally Posted by Thani-B

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.

Good point. Mind you, we shouldn't speed in 50 areas at all. That's where speeding really is dangerous.

**Thani-B** · 29th September 2009, 17:49

Originally Posted by NDORFN

Good point. Mind you, we shouldn't speed in 50 areas at all. That's where speeding really is dangerous.

Ok so 121 in a 100 then. Same diff when it comes to the speed over the limit.

**p.dath** · 29th September 2009, 17:49

Where does it say demerits on public holidays will quadruple? I'll do some Googling on this later to see if I can find a reference. I know you said the copper said this - but does this sound right?

Note that different speed limits can be posted during public holidays, but that doesn't imply any quadrupling of the dermit points.

**Thani-B** · 29th September 2009, 17:51

Originally Posted by p.dath

Where does it say demerits on public holidays will quadruple? I'll do some Googling on this later to see if I can find a reference. I know you said the copper said this - but does this sound right?

Note that different speed limits can be posted during public holidays, but that doesn't imply any quadrupling of the dermit points.

Thats what the whole point of the thread was, asking if anyone else had heard what he told me. It doesnt mean it is going to happen. He might have just been trying to scare us into not speeding.

**NDORFN** · 29th September 2009, 17:52

Originally Posted by Thani-B

Ok so 121 in a 100 then. Same diff when it comes to the speed over the limit.

Yeah you're quadrupling, not doubling. You'd get 70 demerit points for 121 in a 100 on a public holiday. You got me thinking though... demerit points and fines should be double for residential zones, so on public holidays you WOULD lose your licence doing 71 in a 50.

**Grahameeboy** · 29th September 2009, 17:52

Originally Posted by p.dath

Where does it say demerits on public holidays will quadruple? I'll do some Googling on this later to see if I can find a reference. I know you said the copper said this - but does this sound right?

Note that different speed limits can be posted during public holidays, but that doesn't imply any quadrupling of the dermit points.

Yeah.a cop told me that I would not get any demerits for crossing no passing....I got 35 points...

**NDORFN** · 29th September 2009, 17:53

Originally Posted by Thani-B

Thats what the whole point of the thread was, asking if anyone else had heard what he told me. It doesnt mean it is going to happen. He might have just been trying to scare us into not speeding.

Police officers don't actively discourage speeding by any other means than to issue infringement notices. Remember that.

**Thani-B** · 29th September 2009, 18:07

Originally Posted by NDORFN

Yeah you're quadrupling, not doubling. You'd get 70 demerit points for 121 in a 100 on a public holiday. You got me thinking though... demerit points and fines should be double for residential zones, so on public holidays you WOULD lose your licence doing 71 in a 50.

No he said they would double from what they are now. And then double again on public holidays. It doesnt matter what speed area you are in, if you are still doing 21km/h over the limit on a public hol, according to him, that would mean loss of licence. Going 71 in a 50 area and 121 in a 100 area is still 21 over the limit.

**Grahameeboy** · 29th September 2009, 18:09

Originally Posted by Thani-B

No he said they would double from what they are now. And then double again on public holidays. It doesnt matter what speed area you are in, if you are still doing 21km/h over the limit on a public hol, according to him, that would mean loss of licence. Going 71 in a 50 area and 121 in a 100 area is still 21 over the limit.

If it happens the Police Prosecution, the Courts will be very busy dealing with requested for Limited Licences....serious...

**Rayray401** · 29th September 2009, 18:34

Lets all just sell our bikes and cars and take the bus. Afterall, we all know NZ has the best public transport system in the world ^^

**p.dath** · 29th September 2009, 18:48

Originally Posted by Thani-B

Thats what the whole point of the thread was, asking if anyone else had heard what he told me. It doesnt mean it is going to happen. He might have just been trying to scare us into not speeding.

I think he might have heard something that someone else said, and as is usually with Chinese whispers, the final story was quite a bit different to the original.

**Hinny** · 29th September 2009, 22:31

Originally Posted by p.dath

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.

The wording that is misleading is using the word speed. They don't mean going in excess of the speed limit... so to use that statistic to justify targeting people going in excess of the speed limit is disingenuous at least and probably a lot of worse adjectives could be justifiably used instead.

In the US the statistics there cite speeding ing in excess of the speed limits accounts for 1% of motorway deaths and 4% of urban deaths. In Australia they have one figure of 2% of road deaths attributable to speeding in excess of the speed limits.
If those percentages were used in NZ then we would be looking at 4 to 16 people being killed each year as a result of speeding in excess of the speed limits.
By comparison 5,000 people a year die from smoking.
How can the use of police resources be used to police speed limits as they do when virtually nothing is done to curb the scourge of tobacco?

Originally Posted by p.dath

I'm starting to think this is a bit of propaganda.
Just because people keep repeating what once person said doesn't make it true.

I'm starting to think this document is a bit of propaganda.

Originally Posted by NDORFN

Police officers don't actively discourage speeding by any other means than to issue infringement notices. Remember that.

Studies have shown that the use of mobile speed enforcement is of limited or no deterrent to speeding.

The most disturbing thing that I have found is that the implementation of the very measures they are promoting here are the ones that have been shown to effect a 50% or more increase in road deaths.
For them to ignore the evidence is quite bizarre to my way of thinking.

They quote empirical evidence from Belgium to justify lowering the speed limit. The countries with the lowest death rates in Europe, Germany and Italy, have the highest speed limits. Unlimited in many places.

In the US 40 odd states raised their speed limits from 55mph to: from 65mph to unlimited in one case.
3 to 1 these States saw a reduction in their death rate whereas the States that kept the 55 limit did not see anything like the same results. This quite succinctly showed that raising the speed limit was a good thing. In Montana they brought it back from unlimited and saw a rise in the death rate. This was mirrored in Australia's Northern Territory where a reduction from unlimited to 130kph and accompanied by the 'Speed Kills' policy implementation saw a 50% increase in the death rate.
The same policy they are promoting here as a good thing.
In Pauly Fuemana's immortal words "How Bizarre, How Bizarre".

**peasea** · 29th September 2009, 22:37

Originally Posted by Grahameeboy

Yeah.a cop told me that I would not get any demerits for crossing no passing....I got 35 points...

Which tells us what?

Don't trust the fuckers, right?

Gawd; give me strength.......the last person on this earth to ask advice from is a cop. Try a hooker, a drug dealer, a lawyer or a finance company director first.