Operation Mataki - SH75 to Akaroa

[Drew]

the speed limit is a guideline regardless of tolerance or not as you only have an estimate of your speed to go by. You mention entrapment but isn't being aware of what you are doing even as important and the fact that your speedos are checked or required to be exact also has to be part of the entrapment. True ignorance of the law is no excuse but not being able to judge if you have crossed the line due to limits outside your control? Travelling below the limit is also a problem but if your speedo says you are at the limit when you aren't what are you to do? Personally I have worked out what my speedo reads when I am travelling at about 100 kph however I am also aware that the speedo doesn't always vary by the same amount. This is one reason I think the tolerance is stupid, then there is the watching the speedo instead of the road etc see that every morning down the gorge past one of NZs biggest stealing stationary cameras, talk about crap driving due to the presence of a camera.

The speedo in your car, cannot be accurate. I'll say that again for the slow witted. IT CAN'T BE CONSISTENTLY ACCURATE!

Tyre wear, brand/model, and inflation are three simple reasons for that. The speedo in your car works on how many times the tyres go round.

Manufacturers must make them read high, or they open themselves to lawsuits. They won't do that.

So, get a decent GPS unit if you wish to sit right on the limit. But if you think of it as an actual limit, you will know that's not a good idea.

[oneofsix]

The speedo in your car, cannot be accurate. I'll say that again for the slow witted. IT CAN'T BE CONSISTENTLY ACCURATE!

Correct hence the requirement for a reasonable tolerance

Tyre wear, brand/model, and inflation are three simple reasons for that. The speedo in your car works on how many times the tyres go round.

close enough, usually actually measures how fast a shaft within the gear box is spinning now days so more variables.

Manufacturers must make them read high, or they open themselves to lawsuits. They won't do that.

tolerance again

So, get a decent GPS unit if you wish to sit right on the limit. But if you think of it as an actual limit, you will know that's not a good idea.

Fuck off vehicle has a speedo and that's all it requires. Also there is nothing miricalus about the posted limit more about how that limit is being driven.

[Drew]

Correct hence the requirement for a reasonable tolerance


close enough, usually actually measures how fast a shaft within the gear box is spinning now days so more variables.


tolerance again


Fuck off vehicle has a speedo and that's all it requires. Also there is nothing miricalus about the posted limit more about how that limit is being driven.

The law needs no tollerance, because speedos read low. Someone breaking the law, thinks they are doing it by more than what they get ticketed for if they believe their speedo.

It is called a limit.

[Scuba_Steve]

i did nae say there are more cops on the roads, just more cops. (mostly in south auckland, how's the crime rate down there?, it's easier to get weed in south auckland than f*ing hamilton, what does that tell you about having more cops... easier weed?)
but nah, i'm highly interested in this empirical check... as i said bro, we're here waiting...

few years back (might still reign true I don't know???)
largest Gang [police] presence per capita was Palmerston North,
most crime per capita was PN, (what were the PIGs doing? you might ask, well)
biggest police scamming operation PN, which also ties in with worst drivers in NZ PN

[oneofsix]

The law needs no tollerance, because speedos read low. Someone breaking the law, thinks they are doing it by more than what they get ticketed for if they believe their speedo.

It is called a limit.

the law needs a tolerance because the speedos are inaccurate and can not be relied on to read low, they usually do but not guaranteed also driving to the limit by watching a speedo is actually less safe than driving to the limit by approximation whilst watching the road and surroundings is much safer. As noted else where I get to observe this daily past a fixed camera location.

[Scuba_Steve]

The law needs no tollerance, because speedos read low. Someone breaking the law, thinks they are doing it by more than what they get ticketed for if they believe their speedo.

Not all, our last car had a 1:1 speedo & the LandRover gives you a 20-30km/h window for you to guess your speed within (tho it also can't sustain 100km/h so you're fairly safe on open road)

[Drew]

the law needs a tolerance because the speedos are inaccurate and can not be relied on to read low, they usually do but not guaranteed also driving to the limit by watching a speedo is actually less safe than driving to the limit by approximation whilst watching the road and surroundings is much safer. As noted else where I get to observe this daily past a fixed camera location.

Show me a vehicle with the right size tyres on it, that has a speedo which reads low, and I'll suck scumdogs cock.

So you are advocating no speed limits, or tollerance to the ones we have? I don't think your argument is exclusive, or totally pertanent to either.

Glancing at a speedo is pretty safe, it should be done at calculated times, when you observe risk to be low enough to look away from the road briefly. Certainly safer than letting our woefully uneducated drivers hoon around at what they perceive as safe speeds.

[Oakie]

as for your daughter... how old now? i mighta known her...
i can't wait to be 16, then i can legally have sex and stop all this jerking off to keep the road toll down...

LOL. She's 25 mate.
You keep up the self abuse ... I'll ride home tonight happy in the knowledge that you're wanking for my safety on the road.

[oneofsix]

Show me a vehicle with the right size tyres on it, that has a speedo which reads low, and I'll suck scumdogs cock.

So you are advocating no speed limits, or tollerance to the ones we have? I don't think your argument is exclusive, or totally pertanent to either.

Glancing at a speedo is pretty safe, it should be done at calculated times, when you observe risk to be low enough to look away from the road briefly. Certainly safer than letting our woefully uneducated drivers hoon around at what they perceive as safe speeds.

Tolerance, you know I've used the word often enough thought you would have picked up on that.
Glancing at the speedo is what I advocate but then allowance has to be made for verations between glances, speed cameras on steep down hills and at the bottom of hills are just plain entrapment. Speed cameras are entrapment as presently used. However current situation is the worst drivers think they are good because they WATCH the speedo even though they disregard other factors.

[huff3r]

the law needs a tolerance because the speedos are inaccurate and can not be relied on to read low, they usually do but not guaranteed also driving to the limit by watching a speedo is actually less safe than driving to the limit by approximation whilst watching the road and surroundings is much safer. As noted else where I get to observe this daily past a fixed camera location.

The Gorge is unsafe because drivers who do not normally scan their instruments enough suddenly have to in order to avoid a ticket.

If people were taught to drive correctly and kept up a good scan rate (i'm talking fractions of a second here!) then maintaining the speed limit would be no worries. Pilots maintain altitude and heading easily enough whilst always being on the lookout for other aircraft, even when in turbulent conditions. Why? Because they scan constantly and quickly, and monitor and correct trends.

[Drew]

Tolerance, you know I've used the word often enough thought you would have picked up on that.
Glancing at the speedo is what I advocate but then allowance has to be made for verations between glances, speed cameras on steep down hills and at the bottom of hills are just plain entrapment. Speed cameras are entrapment as presently used. However current situation is the worst drivers think they are good because they WATCH the speedo even though they disregard other factors.

Soooooo, do we need to have a tolerance, or do we need people to actually know how to drive?

Interestingly, if by some miracle driver training became mandatory and vehicle control was the norm, the speed limit could become far more of a guide line than a limit. People could by and large, be trusted to know what was safe.

The tolerance is currently a problem, because of basic human nature.

Speed cameras. Meant to be a deterrent, the camera on the Ngauranga gorge is a perfect example of what should not happen...on the motorist part. Most people come whoring up to it at 95k's, then jam on the brakes to slow down to 80. Then they get the welly right back up it. I think there should be a mobile camera just round the corner from time to time, and one just before it. To stop a very dangerous practice.

You might argue that the camera should come down, but it is clearly in a position that needs to be addressed when it comes to speeders. Wouldn't you agree?

[oneofsix]

The Gorge is unsafe because drivers who do not normally scan their instruments enough suddenly have to in order to avoid a ticket.

If people were taught to drive correctly and kept up a good scan rate (i'm talking fractions of a second here!) then maintaining the speed limit would be no worries. Pilots maintain altitude and heading easily enough whilst always being on the lookout for other aircraft, even when in turbulent conditions. Why? Because they scan constantly and quickly, and monitor and correct trends.

Disagree. Part of the issue with the gorge is the lack of choice when to scan the speedo. A bit like the argument of cellphone vs in car conversation, one allows choice of when to divert attention the other doesn't. The gorge camera is on a speed part and also demanding a speed limited to less than normal and less than the road can handle, that road was 55 mph when the open road limit was 50 mph and was only reduced to 80 kph until the Newland's over-bridge was built another NZTA Tui moment.

[huff3r]

Disagree. Part of the issue with the gorge is the lack of choice when to scan the speedo. A bit like the argument of cellphone vs in car conversation, one allows choice of when to divert attention the other doesn't. The gorge camera is on a speed part and also demanding a speed limited to less than normal and less than the road can handle, that road was 55 mph when the open road limit was 50 mph and was only reduced to 80 kph until the Newland's over-bridge was built another NZTA Tui moment.

Oh so theyve fixed the continual shoddy surface now have they? Last time I was there I wouldn't have done 100 down it!

Interestingly the Engineer who did the assessment for the speed limit there and came up with 80kph was also the first person to be caught by the camera.

[Drew]

Interestingly the Engineer who did the assessment for the speed limit there and came up with 80kph was also the first person to be caught by the camera.

I'm sure that's an urban myth.

[Scuba_Steve]

The Gorge is unsafe because drivers who do not normally scan their instruments enough suddenly have to in order to avoid a ticket.

If people were taught to drive correctly and kept up a good scan rate (i'm talking fractions of a second here!) then maintaining the speed limit would be no worries. Pilots maintain altitude and heading easily enough whilst always being on the lookout for other aircraft, even when in turbulent conditions. Why? Because they scan constantly and quickly, and monitor and correct trends.

Gorge is unsafe because everyones checking speedos to avoid being scammed whiles the fucktrad in front that's been doing 60km/h the whole time on the artificially restricted (to improve income) 80km/h road has slammed on their brakes to further drop speed for the camera
As for pilots thats a fucking strawman if ever I heard one, it has absolutely no relation to the discussion at hand (FYI the price of snapper is 19.40/kg) send a million or so above NZ then see how well these pilots do

Interestingly, if by some miracle driver training became mandatory and vehicle control was the norm, the speed limit could become far more of a guide line than a limit. People could by and large, be trusted to know what was safe.
....
Speed cameras. Meant to be a deterrent, the camera on the Ngauranga gorge is a perfect example of what should not happen...on the motorist part. Most people come whoring up to it at 95k's, then jam on the brakes to slow down to 80. Then they get the welly right back up it. I think there should be a mobile camera just round the corner from time to time, and one just before it. To stop a very dangerous practice.

You might argue that the camera should come down, but it is clearly in a position that needs to be addressed when it comes to speeders. Wouldn't you agree?

yes proper admittance to the road should be, but we're never gonna see it cause no politicians gonna enact a safety regulation that's gonna see 70% of people off the road.
The speed scam started off annoyingly but safely, Only targeting those not inline with the rest. However it has been turned into a full time money grabbing scam & has become dangerous as a result, the gorge is a perfect example. People don't come "whoring up to it at 95k's, then jam on the brake" they go dawdling along to it at around 70km/h & then jam their brakes on down to 40-50km/h while everyone stares at their speedo to avoid the scam... yea safe
The way it came in could be argued for safety, the way it is now run is pure straight out scam with adverse affect to safety