Cop versus bike fatality - Poll up on Yahoo for 20 April only

[Ender EnZed]

Anyone taking bets on the final result? I reckon 63% yes, 33% no and 4% don't know.

[Dadpole]

Am I the only one to be worried that I live in a country where people fill out an online poll with 'Don't know'? Are these people allowed on the roads I use?

[Maki]

I missed your reply above - agreed.. Propaganda is rife in both eastern and western worlds. A wise person believes half of what they read. A genius believes the right half. Flame me all they want - it's just a website. I just want the truth.

You want the truth? You got it:

"Q. Isn't slower always safer?
A. No, federal and state studies have consistently shown that the drivers most likely to get into accidents in traffic are those traveling significantly below the average speed. According to an Institute of Transportation Engineers Study, those driving 10 mph slower than the prevailing speed are six times as likely to be involved in an accident. That means that if the average speed on an interstate is 70 mph, the person traveling at 60 mph is far more likely to be involved in an accident than someone going 70 or even 80 mph. "

http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/

[quickbuck]

Am I the only one to be worried that I live in a country where people fill out an online poll with 'Don't know'? Are these people allowed on the roads I use?

Yup......
I think it is for those who are compulsive voters, who can't make up their mind.....

You see them in town straddling two lanes and then picking the shortest que at the lights.. all the while nil indication of intention.

[=cJ=]

If they were to place the emphasis on behavior that is really dangerous, such as overtaking in areas with limited visibility, driving while impaired and general stupidity such as U turns where no one should dream of making one I believe they would actually make our roads safer.

This is pretty much bang on what I was going to say. Laziness dictates I quote it instead.

Interesting is that there's been a few places where they've just got rid of signage too, let people work it out and they're automatically more careful.

[davebullet]

Am I the only one to be worried that I live in a country where people fill out an online poll with 'Don't know'? Are these people allowed on the roads I use?

The don't knows probably are the ones with a clue. The majority who answer yes are the hapless sheep that follow anyone. Polls are often worded to garner "yes" responses. Yes is the first in the list so the lazy will select the top one - just so they can say they've had their say.

The poll is moronic.... "police emphasis on revenue generation".... and where does that fact come from?

[Motu]

I voted no.

[Oakie]

I voted no ... five times. I screwed their poll!

To be fair though the question was apparently a quote from New Zealand Motorcycle Safety Consultants CEO Allan Kirk. http://www.megarider.com/ Wouldn't be surprised though if it's a mis-quote or a paraphrase.

[danb]

Same here: NO, 120 bucks you can earn again. The Demerit Points would concern me more.
The Question is totally wrong.

Getting a Drivers License in NZ is way too easy. Practical Defensive Driving should be in.

[motor_mayhem]

Same here: NO, 120 bucks you can earn again. The Demerit Points would concern me more.
The Question is totally wrong.

Getting a Drivers License in NZ is way too easy. Practical Defensive Driving should be in.

So if they bought in a new system you'd be quite happy to support a fair system where your old licence is revoked and you have to retake the test?

The thing that gets me is that I think the fuzz are more run like a company than a public service, and the reason they are on the roads is not so much because they want to make it safer but because they can generate more revenue for less effort.

Hypothetically if some crazy govt came into power and decided that number plates were a waste of time but every person had to be chipped and they could suddenly use rfid to identify people going in and out of buildings etc, do you think the New Zealand Police Ltd would start coming down hard on trespassing and move away from road enforcing?

In the past year myself and my friends have collectively been on the bad end of 1 car stolen, 2 dirt bikes stolen, 3 forced entries on a van and 1 on a car, a motorcycle helmet, a sub box and a large toolkit stolen over 8 separate occasions and 3 separate locations, total damage/loss cost would leave you only chump change from 15k. I'll let you guess how much the fuzz has got back and suggest it's probably proportional to the amount of time they spent on it. And no mr front line policeman did not make it that way purposely but I think an accidentally leaked memo or "off the record" conversation or some other thing could help move the beast in the right direction.

[R-Soul]

You want the truth? You got it:

"Q. Isn't slower always safer?
A. No, federal and state studies have consistently shown that the drivers most likely to get into accidents in traffic are those traveling significantly below the average speed. According to an Institute of Transportation Engineers Study, those driving 10 mph slower than the prevailing speed are six times as likely to be involved in an accident. That means that if the average speed on an interstate is 70 mph, the person traveling at 60 mph is far more likely to be involved in an accident than someone going 70 or even 80 mph. "

http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/

Case in point is the ridiculous traffic light system on teh on ramps in Auckland. WTF? I was taught that teh key to merging with traffic on a motorway is to be travelling teh same speed as tehm. It is not speed that kills- it is speed differential.

To my mind it doe not mnake sense to force drivers to kill their speed totally, and then give them less thana few hundred metres to get back up to 100km/hr! that measn that they either need to really gas it to merge safely, or merge at a greater speed differential. just DUMB!! Like the NZ left turn rule - who is to say that they aren't turning left into a driveway after the road? Someone did not think that through...

[shrub]

You want the truth? You got it:

"Q. Isn't slower always safer?
A. No, federal and state studies have consistently shown that the drivers most likely to get into accidents in traffic are those traveling significantly below the average speed. According to an Institute of Transportation Engineers Study, those driving 10 mph slower than the prevailing speed are six times as likely to be involved in an accident. That means that if the average speed on an interstate is 70 mph, the person traveling at 60 mph is far more likely to be involved in an accident than someone going 70 or even 80 mph. "

http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/

An interesting comment in the article about Australian speed limits was "“A major reason for the failure of the policy is the extreme focus on the dangers of above the limit travel to the exclusion of nearly all other risk factors,” Brelsford said. “This implies that traveling below the speed limit is safe, leading to complacency, inattention and increased fatalities. Additionally, the current policy of hidden speed cameras has actually impaired driver awareness through adding to an increasing list of dangerous distractions.”"

This is in line with my experiences - the times I have been at greatest risk have been when a citizen in their cage has been too distracted to notice me, and they were never speeding.

[Patrick]

.... Of course, they would probably have to sort their current attitudes and policies out first......

You can teach em all on that..... DB's new business venture....

DB's school on "How to win friends and influence people."

ROFL.......