Speed tolerance reduced for December and January

[willytheekid]

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.

And it is the responcibility of New Zealand police to review these new recommendations & laws that are suggested by these "democratically elected government stratas", and to make an educated call if there new law's etc are actualy in the publics best interest and if they will add to the publics actual Roadsafety!...not to just blindly agree with them in the name of profit and greed!

Just imagine the impact the police could make if you all put such effort into catching REAL criminals like burglars and such....but that would take actual police work!, involve making an effort!, and actually working WITH the public....but theres no easy profit involved, no promise's of more funding etc...aye! (And yet every year - they cut your funding!!...and you call Akzle stupid??)

Sorry to say it mate...but all I heard yesterday, from all around the country!(I make hundreds of calls a day) and in our sizable office, was the same thing, over an over...."See the revenue collectors are out again for xmas!...do they not know we are struggling to feed our fucking familys!...maggots!!...fuck them!...sell outs!!...Govt whores!!"

So there ya go Ras...please go back to your boss and deliver the message from the public of New Zealand...we are sick of being milked!...Sick of being sold out by those who are meant to represent & protect us.
So get ready for a rough xmas shift boys, because it sounds like you just pissed off the entire nation...again! (Its like the NZ Police are making an EFFORT to make the public hate and resent them??)



ps...http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9447...g-side-of-road - its called giving away license's!, a bloody good place to start if you lot REALLY want to keep your fellow kiwis safe on our roads...focus on the REAL problems!, not the most profitable!!


-Ride safe Ras...we know your just the messenger, and we truly do appriciate your paitence in listening to our concerns/Bitching, From my family to yours, have a safe & merry xmas

[caspernz]

I must say tho; with public confidence & respect in cops at an all time low, what better way to boost public perception than to further piss people off.

Goes further than that. The wedge between Joe Public and Mr Plod is one thing. But the regular Mr Plods who are annoyed with their own hierarchy for being taken down this path have a simple answer. I have heard this first hand from several boys in blue; it's one thing to have the silly tolerance, it's quite another to actually enforce it rigidly. No use if you get sprung by a HP fella who believes that 5 clicks over is a crime of course...

Oh well, if it's any consolation to the two wheeled fraternity...heavy vehicles have been living by that 4 kmh tolerance for some years. Still there's selective enforcement of that rule, with the big picture normally taken into account, unless you start off with a bad attitude when having the roadside chat of course

[swbarnett]

did you read the rest of my post numbnuts? I agree with you. On a principled basis even.

Yes, I did get that. That's why I didn't direct the answer directly at you. Sorry if that was unclear.

[swbarnett]

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.

Fact 1: Risk of injury is proportional to impact velocity.

Fact 2: Risk of accident is not proportional to travelling velocity.

Fact 3: Risk of accident is proportional to level of inattention.

Therefore:
Fact 4: Risk of injury is proportional to the product of level of inattention and impact velocity.

Fact 5: Attentive drivers travelling fast are way more likely to avoid injury than attentive drivers travelling slow.

Penalise inattention, not speed. And stop throwing inattention in the "too hard basket".

[chasio]

Thats not really a worry compaired to getting a big ticket in the interest of saftey when overtaking when a safe speed may be as high as 120-130km. In such a situation I put my safety
first irresppective of the speed I get up to. Luckily I do not feel the urge to overtake that much and am happy to wait for a passing lane mostly.

Totally agree and if I decide to do 130 or whatever and get pinged, no problem. It was a conscious choice to do so and I'll pay the price.

My beef is that a low tolerance is at least misguided and a distraction from the real task at hand and at worst both a distraction on the road (reducing safety) AND a manipulative way of taxing the populace.

Jay GTI makes some very good points in a post that sadly will probably be too long to hold the attention of many readers...

[chasio]

...
Fact 5: Attentive drivers travelling fast are way more likely to avoid injury than attentive drivers travelling slow.
...

Either I am missing your point, or there is a missing in- prefix on your second "attentive". I concede that both are possible.

[SPman]

Fact 5: Attentive drivers travelling fast are way more likely to avoid injury than attentive drivers travelling slow.

Should that not be Inattentive drivers travelling slow........?

They do the same thing over here, allied with double demerits - it's the same scenario that NZ follows - Aus tries it out, makes shitloads of cash, so NZ follows.....do you have double demerits yet?

So, we have a speedometer that is legally meant to be within a +/- 5% accuracy...and at 100 kph, they introduce a + 4% tolerance!..................

[Ocean1]

Penalise inattention, not speed. And stop throwing inattention in the "too hard basket".

But it is too hard. When made responsible for an impossible answer, ask another question. You won't substantially change human behaviour, so change what you can: the environment and the vehicle. There's a reason those two variables have been responsible for almost all of the historical improvements in injury rate amongst road users: improvements are actually possible.

There's a reason rule changes and enforcement are responsible for bugger all: they assume you can change human behaviour. Innatention is impossible to quantify to begin with, and impossible for any human to provide sufficient attention 100% of the time to avoid every concievable eventuality.

Give the heavy handed enforcement bullshit up, make it safer to be human.

[rastuscat]

Fact 1: Risk of injury is proportional to impact velocity.

Fact 2: Risk of accident is not proportional to travelling velocity.

Fact 3: Risk of accident is proportional to level of inattention.

Therefore:
Fact 4: Risk of injury is proportional to the product of level of inattention and impact velocity.

Fact 5: Attentive drivers travelling fast are way more likely to avoid injury than attentive drivers travelling slow.

Penalise inattention, not speed. And stop throwing inattention in the "too hard basket".

Totally agree.

How do we do that?

[Swoop]

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.

Eh?
A bit of a contradictory statement.

Anyway, who cares if someone passes you?
I drive on the left and am quite happy if some lambo/ferrari/porche zipps by at 200?

Be concerned with the retarded cockfags who run red lights!

I don't think it's been posted yet? Here's the new P.I.G.mobiles in mention

The new HQ's will look TOTALLY cool out on the roads!

[Zedder]

Totally agree.

How do we do that?

That Professor Regan I posted about earlier has written a book on the subject: http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9781409425854

[Jay GTI]

Jay GTI.... in a post that sadly will probably be too long to hold the attention of many readers...

Yeah I know, but I felt bad about the last time I commented on a similar thread, so wanted to put a bit more effort in this time. A little too much effort, as it turned out...

[Paul in NZ]

Totally agree.

How do we do that?

Eh? Sorry I missed that bit... What did you say again?

Look - this is all nice and great but I'm with the rest. I'm over it... 4kph allowance?? FFS this is getting stupid, I'll be riding around looking at the damn speedo all the time and not the road.

[onearmedbandit]

It was said to me by a person who has some idea/experience that ACC were a major contributor to road safety funding. And for that 'investment' they want to see returns, ie less carnage on the roads.

[Zedder]

Eh? Sorry I missed that bit... What did you say again?

Look - this is all nice and great but I'm with the rest. I'm over it... 4kph allowance?? FFS this is getting stupid, I'll be riding around looking at the damn speedo all the time and not the road.

Yep, it is getting stupid, but rtc doesn't work like that. He could have kept quiet, done nothing and just keep taking the money.