Speed tolerance reduced for December and January

[HenryDorsetCase]

3-i petted my goat today. I like my goat.

Goats are awesome. No funny buiness though, eh

[Hoon]

Good one I say. I have no sympathy for people that speed or break the law. The govt needs to get money from somewhere and I'd rather it come from the dumbarses out there instead from honest law abiding citizens. Sure I've had the occasional speeding ticket but I know the risks and am prepared to accept the punishment should I get caught.

[Zedder]

Okay, so inattention is the greatest causal factor.

So, when those inattentive people crash, is it better for them to be going faster or slower?

The cause matters, but beyond that, the outcome is heavily influenced by the energy imparted at impact.

Just a fact. Sorry for being so dull.

The Prof believes inattention is the biggest contributing factor rtc, not causal factor so there's other factors at play, environment etc.

Crashing off the road at 100 plus kms into the bulldust in outback Oz is way different from a Downtown Auckland traffic scenario obviously.

[Ocean1]

The cause matters, but beyond that, the outcome is heavily influenced by the energy imparted at impact.

The inescapable conclusion of which is a speed limit of zero.

When you can present a graph showing the causal relationship between speed and safety and you're prepared to negotiate a speed AND it's associated fatality rate with those actually using the roads then you'll be contributing to a rational choice. Failing to do so is a nonsense driven by a safety culture with little relevance to the real world.

There is no such thing as perfectly safe.

[rastuscat]

doesnt fuking matter, actually. 80% of fatalaties happen below the speed limit. (im statistically safer speeding)

your turn.

My turn........76% of stats are sucky.

I've oft quoted the laws of physics. Is it so hard to understand that if you fall over while walking its better than falling over while running?

Why you fell over is an entirely different issue. Sometimes its coz you're a bad runner.

I'm trying to get my head around your odd logic about it being safer to speed. Breathtakingly stupid, but challenging.

[Scuba_Steve]

My turn........76% of stats are sucky.

I've oft quoted the laws of physics. Is it so hard to understand that if you fall over while walking its better than falling over while running?

Why you fell over is an entirely different issue. Sometimes its coz you're a bad runner.

I'm trying to get my head around your odd logic about it being safer to speed. Breathtakingly stupid, but challenging.

Here lets put it in an experiment you can try out at the office... spend the day walking round while constantly looking at your watch (or "smartphone" if you don't have a watch), then spend the next day jogging round but watching where you're going.

Let me know which works out better for you.

[rastuscat]

The inescapable conclusion of which is a speed limit of zero.

When you can present a graph showing the causal relationship between speed and safety and you're prepared to negotiate a speed AND it's associated fatality rate with those actually using the roads then you'll be contributing to a rational choice. Failing to do so is a nonsense driven by a safety culture with little relevance to the real world.

There is no such thing as perfectly safe.

Yes. No speed is safe completely. But as a society we have to travel about. Its important for social, financial, actually so many reasons.

So, as a democratic society we elect people to make decisions on the balance between the need to travel pitted against the safety of the whole. At this time in history we have the limits set by various democratically elected government stratas.

Those strata employ and direct various activites around enforcing such limits as are set.

And this is where the discussion started.

[Dave-]

The inescapable conclusion of which is a speed limit of zero.

When you can present a graph showing the causal relationship between speed and safety and you're prepared to negotiate a speed AND it's associated fatality rate with those actually using the roads then you'll be contributing to a rational choice. Failing to do so is a nonsense driven by a safety culture with little relevance to the real world.

There is no such thing as perfectly safe.

The probability of death tends to one as the independent variable tends to zero though. Which makes sense, if you don't move, or don't move fast enough, then you die.

[Akzle]

Is it so hard to understand that if you fall over while walking its better than falling over while running?

I'm trying to get my head around your odd logic about it being safer to speed. Breathtakingly stupid, but challenging.

come now rasty, you cant tell me you actually believe that shit?! I thought you were all like 'i am cop, i enforce policy, FUCK YOU plebian'

but you actually BELIEVE slow =safe?

IHC must be the safest place out.

It depends, if im running im probably paying attention, whereas if im walking, im probably drunk. So id take my chances, either way, my choice, innit?
Or are you going to ticket me for running with scissors in the daycare centre?

You must have been stoked to go from hall monitor sash to blue hat.

[Ocean1]

Yes. No speed is safe completely. But as a society we have to travel about. Its important for social, financial, actually so many reasons.

So, as a democratic society we elect people to make decisions on the balance between the need to travel pitted against the safety of the whole. At this time in history we have the limits set by various democratically elected government stratas.

Those strata employ and direct various activites around enforcing such limits as are set.

And this is where the discussion started.

The decisions are obviously not in line with the electors wishes, as evidenced by the majority of drivers cheerfully exceeding the limit on a daily basis.

Which is where the discussion needs to begin. Most, whether they're aware of the statistical likelihood of injury or not are accepting the risk associated with higher limits. Why isn't that publicly acceptable balance acceptable to the elected decision makers?

I don't really think the reason's rooted in cost savings for ACC. I think it's just an irrational response to an impossible demand to "do something about the carnage".

[Dave-]

if im running im probably paying attention, whereas if im walking, im probably drunk.

It's the time when you're probably not paying attention which these laws are set for. Seeing as it's impractical for us to test you're attention (it's easy to do in theory - you're an idiot) it makes much more sense to have a blanket rule for everyone, 100% of the time.

[Akzle]

It's the time when you're probably not paying attention which these laws are set for. Seeing as it's impractical for us to test you're attention (it's easy to do in theory - you're an idiot) it makes much more sense to have a blanket rule for everyone, 100% of the time.

yeah nah. If im piloting metal, im paying attention.
Blanket rule? No cars.
Very easy to police. And every road suddenly becomes 4 motorbike lanes in each direction.

Next.

[rastuscat]

) it makes much more sense to have a blanket rule for everyone, 100% of the time.

Yeah, thing is, laws have to be enforcable to be effective.

I'd love to have a law that allows better drivers to go faster than fuckwits, but that'd mean setting up a system to define who the fuckwits are.

So we make a law for everyone based on the fuckwits. Because they do exist, so we gotta allow for them.

[Dave-]

yeah nah. If im piloting metal, im paying attention.
Blanket rule? No cars.
Very easy to police. And every road suddenly becomes 4 motorbike lanes in each direction.

Next.

No you said you're probably paying attention while speeding, which implies there is a finite amount of time you aren't.

Now you're saying it's 100% of the time? so you were mistaken?

I would have thought someone who can operate at 100% all the time wouldn't make a mistake like that....

[rastuscat]

yeah nah. If im piloting metal, im paying attention.
Blanket rule? No cars.
Very easy to police. And every road suddenly becomes 4 motorbike lanes in each direction.

Next.

Cool idea that one. Totally not going to happen, but cool.

Trouble is, I'm working in the real world where shit has to actually happen, not virtually.

Develop the idea into a business case Akzle, I'll push it for ya.

BTW, we've hsd a win on DRLs for motorcycles. From 1 Jan 14 theyll be legal. The submissions worked.