Speed tolerance reduced for December and January

[bluninja]

It's recklessly speeding motorcyclists like you that give all of us a bad name. I bet you're a bloody menace on the road.

Especially in a car. I'm the pilot of 1.5 tonnes of metal mayhem Still waiting for the first bike ticket in NZ, must be riding too slow, or much too fast. They'll get me one day

[angle]

Especially in a car. I'm the pilot of 1.5 tonnes of metal mayhem Still waiting for the first bike ticket in NZ, must be riding too slow, or much too fast. They'll get me one day

I can share mine. I'm not greedy.

[scumdog]

You get outa the fucking way and let 'em live their own decisions.

As long as their bad decisions don't affect others....

[Tazz]

As long as their bad decisions don't affect others....

You're going to have to lock us all indoors to stop that from happening, and even then someone has to design the door and building, and build it, and there is decision making involved in all that, plus cost cutting, laziness on the building, and manufacturing of the materials front etc etc.

Basically, we can't escape stupidity whether it is our own or others being forced upon us and there are only so many rules people won't notice, or put up with, being put in place before something gives.

[rastuscat]

If by "Basic human errors msin cause ofcroad crashes" you mean: Basic human errors are the main cause of road crashes, these guys don't agree: http://www.visualexpert.com/Resource...accidents.html

Read it today.

It appears to say that there's not much we can do to prevent many crashes, due to human factors beyond our ability to change.

So how about we change our thinking around, and view it from the other direction. We accept that some crashes will happen due to human factors. C'est la vie.

Now, is it better to have those inevitable crashes at higher speed or lower speed?

[Tazz]

Now, is it better to have those inevitable crashes at higher speed or lower speed?

Is this a trick question?

My stab at it.....a death is a death, regardless of speed, and while statistically more deaths may occur from crashes at higher speeds on a case by case basis (so it is an easier thing to put a marketing/statistical spin on), if less are happening at those speeds, I'd probably rather the thinking (or causes) around the higher amount of deaths (which are due crashes at lower speeds) be targeted....because more people are dying from them? Call me crazy

It's kinda like saying, would you rather someone is shot dead, or killed by choking on a carrot and ignoring the fact that out of 5 people killed by the two causes, only 1 was shot...but someone being shot is a more dramatic death so you roll out the counter measures on that to make more of a 'dramatic impact' on the hearts and minds.

I think that makes sense... but just in case this post was brought to you by Auchentoshan and the letter 12.

[R650R]

Now, is it better to have those inevitable crashes at higher speed or lower speed?

Now why can't your superiors stick to a simple message like that which we have to agree is right.
From my heavy truck driving I have a strong lane discipline of not cutting corners and often use the line on mates 'hey what if the guy coming the other way is driving in the same manner as you?"
I do think we get a bit of risk compensation from those people that obey the law and then don't pay attention. I'm sure we've all followed that 'careful driver' who only does about 96 max in the hundred zone but is nattering away to passengers, pointing out scenery etc, then when they hit the 70 zone at next town they still doing 96!!! Then about halfway through they realise, panic and slam on brakes down to about 50...

[Jantar]

....
Now, is it better to have those inevitable crashes at higher speed or lower speed?

Wrong question. You should be asking "Is it better to have MORE crashes due to not watching the road, or fewer crashes because people are encouraged to pay attention to what they are doing?"

Next, think of the incident triangle. For every fatal incident there are ten critical ones. For every critical incident there are ten serious ones. For every serious incident there are ten minor ones and for every minor incident there are ten potential ones. If we can reduce the potential incidents then we automatically reduce the minor, serious, critical and fatal ones as well. (From aviation human factors, but applies to the road equally).

[Zedder]

Read it today.

It appears to say that there's not much we can do to prevent many crashes, due to human factors beyond our ability to change.

So how about we change our thinking around, and view it from the other direction. We accept that some crashes will happen due to human factors. C'est la vie.

Now, is it better to have those inevitable crashes at higher speed or lower speed?

Read it again. Particularly the part in paragraph 2: "In reality, it is often the situation that is primarily reponsible not the drivers response to it". Also the pedestrian in the example shares the blame. The article is a bit of an add on to the distraction/inattention issue mentioned earlier.

It's not as cut and dried as high speed versus lower speed, there are many factors involved. My post number 80 made mention of two different scenarios related to it.

[R650R]

Next, think of the incident triangle. For every fatal incident there are ten critical ones. For every critical incident there are ten serious ones. For every serious incident there are ten minor ones and for every minor incident there are ten potential ones. If we can reduce the potential incidents then we automatically reduce the minor, serious, critical and fatal ones as well. (From aviation human factors, but applies to the road equally).

That's a pretty cool way to look at it. I wonder how people would drive if we were all in radio contact with giant call signs on side of doors and had to ask permission to enter 'land' at the next town or garage.

[rastuscat]

Shit is going to happen.

I suspect that those reading this will not expect shit to happen to them, but it does happen, and to people who didn't expect it to happen.

When shit happens, it's better to be going slower. Like, 50 instead of 58, 100 instead of 112, that sort of thing. I'm not talking about those doing 160, just the average guy/girl doing what they have always done. When shit happens to Mr and Mrs Average, it's better if they are going slower.

That's all I'm saying. Sure, it'd be better if there was something we could do to stop shit happening, and we actually do stuff to try to prevent it. But shit still happens, and it's better for it to happen at lower speeds.

When shit stops happening, I totally agree that we should be allowed to go faster.

At the risk of repeating myself, it never ceases to amaze me how many people tell me that the standard of roads and driving in Noo Zilland is dreadful, but that the speed limit is too low.

All this is tempered by the fact that my section isn't big on speeding tickets. We do lots of other stuff, but speed isn't a huge focus for us. I think I'm out of step with the management on that one, but I think we have other things to do too, not just speed.

[Edbear]

Now why can't your superiors stick to a simple message like that which we have to agree is right.
From my heavy truck driving I have a strong lane discipline of not cutting corners and often use the line on mates 'hey what if the guy coming the other way is driving in the same manner as you?"
I do think we get a bit of risk compensation from those people that obey the law and then don't pay attention. I'm sure we've all followed that 'careful driver' who only does about 96 max in the hundred zone but is nattering away to passengers, pointing out scenery etc, then when they hit the 70 zone at next town they still doing 96!!! Then about halfway through they realise, panic and slam on brakes down to about 50...

Doncha jes hate that!

Wrong question. You should be asking "Is it better to have MORE crashes due to not watching the road, or fewer crashes because people are encouraged to pay attention to what they are doing?"

Next, think of the incident triangle. For every fatal incident there are ten critical ones. For every critical incident there are ten serious ones. For every serious incident there are ten minor ones and for every minor incident there are ten potential ones. If we can reduce the potential incidents then we automatically reduce the minor, serious, critical and fatal ones as well. (From aviation human factors, but applies to the road equally).

Surely you're not suggesting education and publicity about driving!!??

Shit is going to happen.

I suspect that those reading this will not expect shit to happen to them, but it does happen, and to people who didn't expect it to happen.

When shit happens, it's better to be going slower. Like, 50 instead of 58, 100 instead of 112, that sort of thing. I'm not talking about those doing 160, just the average guy/girl doing what they have always done. When shit happens to Mr and Mrs Average, it's better if they are going slower.

That's all I'm saying. Sure, it'd be better if there was something we could do to stop shit happening, and we actually do stuff to try to prevent it. But shit still happens, and it's better for it to happen at lower speeds.

When shit stops happening, I totally agree that we should be allowed to go faster.

At the risk of repeating myself, it never ceases to amaze me how many people tell me that the standard of roads and driving in Noo Zilland is dreadful, but that the speed limit is too low.

All this is tempered by the fact that my section isn't big on speeding tickets. We do lots of other stuff, but speed isn't a huge focus for us. I think I'm out of step with the management on that one, but I think we have other things to do too, not just speed.

Too many don't understand this! Fact is, accidents happen and can happen to anyone, anywhere, anytime, any speed, any conditions. I broke my back at 45km/h in town traffic driving to work in a very strong van, noted for its ability to see people walk away in a serious head-on.

Why, don't TPTB make a Defensaive Driving course compulsory for getting your licence in the first place and for anyone convicted of a driving offense of some seriousness? Not for 5km/h over the limit, but for high speeds and accidents, drunk driving, etc.

[Zedder]

Shit is going to happen.

I suspect that those reading this will not expect shit to happen to them, but it does happen, and to people who didn't expect it to happen.

When shit happens, it's better to be going slower. Like, 50 instead of 58, 100 instead of 112, that sort of thing. I'm not talking about those doing 160, just the average guy/girl doing what they have always done. When shit happens to Mr and Mrs Average, it's better if they are going slower.

That's all I'm saying. Sure, it'd be better if there was something we could do to stop shit happening, and we actually do stuff to try to prevent it. But shit still happens, and it's better for it to happen at lower speeds.

When shit stops happening, I totally agree that we should be allowed to go faster.

At the risk of repeating myself, it never ceases to amaze me how many people tell me that the standard of roads and driving in Noo Zilland is dreadful, but that the speed limit is too low.

All this is tempered by the fact that my section isn't big on speeding tickets. We do lots of other stuff, but speed isn't a huge focus for us. I think I'm out of step with the management on that one, but I think we have other things to do too, not just speed.

Of course "Shit is going to happen", otherwise you wouldn't have a job and insurance companies etc would be out of work.

There is no doubt you believe strongly in what you're doing, your dedication clearly shows through.

However, all I and others are writing about, is the "magic bullet" reduction in speed approach which according to experts is wrong and also just penalises the Mums and Dads.

Putting aside the Transportation Human Factors etc, I was recently reading a report which found (not surprisingly) black cars are involved in 47% of crashes. That's a shit load of accidents!

[swbarnett]

Shit is going to happen.

I suspect that those reading this will not expect shit to happen to them, but it does happen, and to people who didn't expect it to happen.

When shit happens, it's better to be going slower. Like, 50 instead of 58, 100 instead of 112, that sort of thing. I'm not talking about those doing 160, just the average guy/girl doing what they have always done. When shit happens to Mr and Mrs Average, it's better if they are going slower.

That's all I'm saying. Sure, it'd be better if there was something we could do to stop shit happening, and we actually do stuff to try to prevent it. But shit still happens, and it's better for it to happen at lower speeds.

All this sounds very logical until you consider what is repeatedly found when speed limits are raised or removed - less shit happens.

[rastuscat]

All this sounds very logical until you consider what is repeatedly found when speed limits are raised or removed - less shit happens.

Cool point actually.

I can think of the Northern Territory experiment that's going on. Interesting arguments either way, I see that it's ongoing. Thing is, how many roads do we have that are hundreds of kilometres long with nil junctions, bugger all curves, etc ? I mean, the NT roads are, ahem, a little different to ours.

Then there's the autobahn. So may people tell us how safe the autobahn is with no speed limit. Um, just how many roads do we have with such quality surfaces, quality barriers, quality on and off ramps.

Surely you'd be lucky to find any road in NZ with that sort of quality.

Am I wrong?