Speed tolerance reduced for December and January

[Jantar]

The guy who is accused of going too fast wasn't even speeding. His speedo was showing 107 kmh but that particular model of Suzuki has a speedo that over reads by 8% so his actual speed was 99 kmh. The speed at which he appeared to hit would suggest that he made no attempt to brake either, so going slower still wouldn't have avoided the accident.

[Ender EnZed]

Must've been a 50km/h zone.

[Edbear]

It was a TV advert, made for TV under the currrent constraints of PC. Effective, though.

[Mushu]

The guy who is accused of going too fast wasn't even speeding. His speedo was showing 107 kmh but that particular model of Suzuki has a speedo that over reads by 8% so his actual speed was 99 kmh. The speed at which he appeared to hit would suggest that he made no attempt to brake either, so going slower still wouldn't have avoided the accident.

I had a very similar argument with my cousin when I saw that ad for the first time I thought it rediculous that he would be shown doing just over 100 and they make out like that couple of km/h would have made any difference, my argument being that he did nothing to respond to the potential hazard that was the other vehicle approaching the stop sign and continued to do nothing at all when the driver actually pulled out, he didn't brake at all despite having quite a bit of warning (the time it took for the subaru to make it halfway across the intersection) and made no attempt to swerve around the offending subaru either despite the fact the sides of the road look to be quite clear (given the choice of t-boning a car or taking my chances swerving into a paddock, even through fences, live stock etc.. I know which I would choose) the cause of that crash was inattention on the part of both drivers, the only role speed played was the force of the impact which is the trade off we have to make unless you want to wind up doing 30km/h everywhere. (and I would bet that it still wouldn't be slow enough to guarantee no road deaths)

[rastuscat]

I had a very similar argument with my cousin when I saw that ad for the first time I thought it rediculous that he would be shown doing just over 100 and they make out like that couple of km/h would have made any difference, my argument being that he did nothing to respond to the potential hazard that was the other vehicle approaching the stop sign and continued to do nothing at all when the driver actually pulled out, he didn't brake at all despite having quite a bit of warning (the time it took for the subaru to make it halfway across the intersection) and made no attempt to swerve around the offending subaru either despite the fact the sides of the road look to be quite clear (given the choice of t-boning a car or taking my chances swerving into a paddock, even through fences, live stock etc.. I know which I would choose) the cause of that crash was inattention on the part of both drivers, the only role speed played was the force of the impact which is the trade off we have to make unless you want to wind up doing 30km/h everywhere. (and I would bet that it still wouldn't be slow enough to guarantee no road deaths)

May I introduce you to the old grammatical habit known as USING PARAGRAPHS.......

[rastuscat]

The guy who is accused of going too fast wasn't even speeding. His speedo was showing 107 kmh but that particular model of Suzuki has a speedo that over reads by 8% so his actual speed was 99 kmh. The speed at which he appeared to hit would suggest that he made no attempt to brake either, so going slower still wouldn't have avoided the accident.

Dude, so predictable. I'm sure you understood what they were saying, you just chose to pick holes in one of the points.

Did you get the point that the speed that you travel at impacts others ability to judge your speed? And that the faster you go, the less the margin for anyones error?

Guess not. Amazing what a closed mind can't see.

[bogan]

May I introduce you to the old grammatical habit known as USING PARAGRAPHS.......

How do you mean? you can't split one sentence across multiple paragraphs though a four line sentence is sometimes frowned upon

Dude, so predictable. I'm sure you understood what they were saying, you just chose to pick holes in one of the points.

Did you get the point that the speed that you travel at impacts others ability to judge your speed? And that the faster you go, the less the margin for anyones error?

Guess not. Amazing what a closed mind can't see.

You know what would make that add a hell of a lot more relevant though, if the guys speedo showed 100kmhr before impact.

As in, people make mistakes, even if you go at or below the speed limit. Rather than, go 100kmhr and our wizards will protect you

[bluninja]

Amazing what a closed mind can't see.

A little bit of psychological projection?

[Dave-]

The guy who is accused of going too fast wasn't even speeding. His speedo was showing 107 kmh but that particular model of Suzuki has a speedo that over reads by 8% so his actual speed was 99 kmh. The speed at which he appeared to hit would suggest that he made no attempt to brake either, so going slower still wouldn't have avoided the accident.

Actually Jantar you're wrong (again). Even at 99km/h he's 'speeding'.

If you watch the video again you will see there is a dip in the road just before the intersection.

While the driver is in the dip he must lose sight of a portion of the lane ahead of him.

In accordance with the 2004 Road User Rules, Section 5.9 (1) clearly states:

A driver must not drive a vehicle in a lane marked on a road at such a speed that the driver is unable to stop in the length of the lane that is visible to the driver.

You can read more about these laws here:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regul...DLM303092.html

Please do, because it sounds as though you're the sort of person they're targeting in the video.

[_Shrek_]

Actually Jantar you're wrong (again). Even at 99km/h he's 'speeding'.

If you watch the video again you will see there is a dip in the road just before the intersection.

While the driver is in the dip he must lose sight of a portion of the lane ahead of him.

I've watched it a few times Dave & both can see each other.....

at the end of the day the guy was at a stop sign & saw the other car & knew his kid was in the car..... that is where the fault is end of story

the pc world wants to blame every one else for their mistakes instead of facing up & owning it...

[rastuscat]

I've watched it a few times Dave & both can see each other.....

at the end of the day the guy was at a stop sign & saw the other car & knew his kid was in the car..... that is where the fault is end of story

the pc world wants to blame every one else for their mistakes instead of facing up & owning it...

Yeah baby. Its always SOEs fault. Someone Elses.

Its a fact of life. Sigmund Frued identified it in his Ego vs Id Theory. Our egos protect us by reading facts so that they protect us.

No matter what happens, we can find someone else to blame.

[R650R]

The guy who is accused of going too fast wasn't even speeding. His speedo was showing 107 kmh but that particular model of Suzuki has a speedo that over reads by 8% so his actual speed was 99 kmh. The speed at which he appeared to hit would suggest that he made no attempt to brake either, so going slower still wouldn't have avoided the accident.

Actually a Nissan Stagea M35.
Nice concept but there's a few things they could have played with outside the generic speed propaganda.
The Stop sign motorist could have opened his window slightly and LISTENED for oncoming traffic, man if we managed to drum that into car drivers habits we could save a few bikers alone just with that. Sadly aircon has thrown away 50% of our natural hazard perception for most people...
The Stagea guy could have chosen which part of Mr Stop signs car to hit. I got this tip from an old driver who t-boned a cop car years ago at Te Poi. Recalling the story to me he said this cop in emergency mode pulled out in front of his truck, he couldn't miss him but he could CHOOSE which part of the car to hit, ie the back or front, not the drivers door etc...
But that's probably getting too complicated for your average tintop driver to be wargaming away hazard scenarios and options instead of listening to radio etc...

[Akzle]

No matter what happens, we can find someone else to blame.

isnt that your job? Finding someone to blame?

As long as its the right people (jews), the blame is well apportioned

cop pulled out in front of his truck, he could CHOOSE which part of the car to hit, ie the drivers door

[pete376403]

re the crash ad - the bush/shrubbery around the base of the pole would obscure the view of the road for the driver at the stop sign, especially if the oncoming car was in the dip. Sometimes it's not always completely the fault of the driver(s)

[scumdog]

re the crash ad - the bush/shrubbery around the base of the pole would obscure the view of the road for the driver at the stop sign, especially if the oncoming car was in the dip. Sometimes it's not always completely the fault of the driver(s)

The useless prick should have realised that and taken even more care eh!

(Now they're blaming the shrubbery...)