Has the current propaganda focus on speed and road safety affected how you ride?

[rastuscat]

By this logic we should abanden driving. Or walking. Hell, let's just all committ scuicide now. That should lower the road toll.

No, it's question of balance. All or nothing arguments are not helpful.

The limits are set at a level of trauma that society can handle. Think of it as a volume control; turn up the speed, and you turn up the injuries. If we were happy to and maim more, put the limits up. Then the average speeds would increase, and people would spend less time on the road. Trouble is, it's likely to increase the related trauma.

See, speed limits are there to regulate the average speed of the fleet, by regulating the speed of the individuals.

I once considered commiting scuicide, but when it came to it I decided that it was too close to suicide for comfort.

[Conquiztador]

The 16 yo chap who crashed on Monday and sadly died today (R.I.P young fella!) cut a blind corner and collected a 4WD. This was rider error. Yes, he might have been speeding, but his mistake was to cross the line in a blind corner. I do not sadly have any solution apart from training to make this type of crash go away. No matter how many millions are spent on policing the speed limit I have a suspision that it would not have helped here.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10699826

[rastuscat]

The big issue is that this young man probably didn't think it would happen to him, so saw no reason to regulate his riding. None of us ever think it will happen to us, so we don't regulate our behaviour.

Then it did happen to him, and the outcome was too late to fix.

RIP, young man, you've had to chance to learn from your mistake, and that's a dreadful outcome.

[Ocean1]

The limits are set at a level of trauma that society can handle.

Bollox, the limits are most certainly not set by “society”. Yes there's always a bunch of hand wringing when there's been a fatality, but it's politicians that use that to drive the policies which set the limits.

Why do politicians continue to legislate to drive speeds down? Follow the cash, it just costs less, it's that simple. So we're forced to endure a penurious and arbitrary enforcement regime in the name of a simple minded austerity measure.

[p.dath]

Why do politicians continue to legislate to drive speeds down? Follow the cash, it just costs less, it's that simple.

And voters like paying less tax ...

[swbarnett]

No, it's question of balance. All or nothing arguments are not helpful.

My argument is not all or nothing. It is that it is the individual that has the right to determine the parameters under which they live their life. As long as consideration is given to those around them noone has the right to set these parameters for them. one should not be forced to live against their principles just so someone else can feel safe in the knowledge that they will not have to witness another's trauma.

The limits are set at a level of trauma that society can handle.

If this is true then why do the majority of vehicles travel above the speed limit until either there's a cop around or they are brainwashed by TV ads and over policing? Left to their own devices society will accept higher and higher speeds over time. In 1896 the first speeding ticket was issued for travelling at 8mph in a 2mph zone. Society changes and with it so does the appreciation of what speeds are generally acceptable. Our current speed limits have been in place long enough now that they are out of step with society (and reality).

Think of it as a volume control; turn up the speed, and you turn up the injuries. If we were happy to and maim more, put the limits up. Then the average speeds would increase, and people would spend less time on the road. Trouble is, it's likely to increase the related trauma.

It has been demonstrated on numerous occasions that raising speed limits (or removing them all together) actually results in fewer crashes and less related trauma.

See, speed limits are there to regulate the average speed of the fleet, by regulating the speed of the individuals.

Yes, this I understand. The trouble is that reducing the average speed of the fleet does not reduce the level of trauma. The slower the fleet the less drivers are thinking about their driving.

[Ocean1]

And voters like paying less tax ...

Not as much as they dislike unreasonable constraints.


Here's an idea: let's leave the speed limits right where they are. Then, sell licences allowing higher speeds in 5k increments, say $1000.00 for +5k, $2000.00 for +10k... Proceeds ringfenced for road safety improvements. Like uprooting kilometres of WRB.

Or you could just cut all the bullshit, chop down all the recomended retail speed signs and allow ACC to calculate individual premiums the same way real insurance companies do. Yes, yes, I know, some people wouldn't be allowed to drive at all. How sad.

[scumdog]

It has been demonstrated on numerous occasions that raising speed limits (or removing them all together) actually results in fewer crashes and less related trauma.
.

Hmmmm,..I wonder...???

Haven't got the figure but untill 1999 - 2000 or thereabouts nobody got a speeding ticket for anything under 20kph more than the set speed limit (50kph to 100kph..whatever it happened to be in that area).

Ergo the 'de facto' speed limit around town was 70kph or so and 120kph on the open road.

Can some brain-box find the figures to do a comparison with say the 1999 figures and 2009? - comparing number of crashes, number of serious injury and deaths etc.

Remembering the fleet on our roads is now a bit bigger of course.

[swbarnett]

Hmmmm,..I wonder...???

Haven't got the figure but untill 1999 - 2000 or thereabouts nobody got a speeding ticket for anything under 20kph more than the set speed limit (50kph to 100kph..whatever it happened to be in that area).

Ergo the 'de facto' speed limit around town was 70kph or so and 120kph on the open road.

I'm not talking about de-facto speed limits. I'm talking about where the actual limit was either raised or removed.

[scumdog]

I'm not talking about de-facto speed limits. I'm talking about where the actual limit was either raised or removed.

It was 'raised', the ignoring of speeds of less than 120kph made it the 'speed limit'. - nobody worried about driving any slower than 120kph when they saw a cop.

[Ocean1]

Hmmmm,..I wonder...???

I suspect many of the numerous changes in other variables since then would completely mask any difference caused by enforcement tolerance.

Wouldn't surprise me if some bright individual proved that the brighter colours of the last few years had a larger impact.

Pity the data required to demonstrate those variables has been so thouroughly butchered by selective acquisition to bolster dodgy policy decisions.


Eh?

[swbarnett]

It was 'raised', the ignoring of speeds of less than 120kph made it the 'speed limit'. - nobody worried about driving any slower than 120kph when they saw a cop.

Yes, but everybody still knew that they were over the official limit. This is not the same as having a 120kph limit.