Speed tolerance reduced for December and January

**Angel_of_Metal** · 3rd January 2014, 15:03

Originally Posted by oneofsix

did someone miss the sarcasm font? If you manage to convince the

then you will be onto something.

THis. *Applauds*

**R650R** · 3rd January 2014, 19:44

Originally Posted by haydes55

LSZ are a stupid idea really. If you go over 100km/h you get a ticket anyway.

LSZs are supposed to be in areas where the road is a risk to travel at 100km/h in poor conditions, so ideally needed different speed limits for rain or sunny days. But if a corner is too sharp/slippery/dangerous to take at 100km/h, you slow down regardless of whether it's a LSZ or a 100km/h zone.

I'd suggest LSZ vs 100km/h speed zones didn't have any noticeable Change in road toll so LSZ would have been canned.

Sssssshhhhhhh don't remind the traffic/govt boffins about these casinos... There are still a few of them about, usually in places where there wold otherwise be a 70 zone between a 100 and a 50 etc. from memory there were five criteria, one on their own enough to reduce limit to 50. Rain, traffic, lighting, and???
Has anyone ever been ticketed in a LSZ?

**Jantar** · 3rd January 2014, 20:12

Originally Posted by R650R

....Has anyone ever been ticketed in a LSZ?

Yes. My first ever ticket was for exceeding 30 mph in a LSZ. It was 1967 and I was 14 years old and on my push bike, try to go as fast as I could down the Faifield straight. The cop who gave me the ticket wrote "warning" on his copy, but let me believe I was actually going to have to go to court. He did have the courtesy to phone my father and tell him the truth, but it did leave me worried for a day or two.

**swbarnett** · 3rd January 2014, 21:59

Originally Posted by Mo NZ

BIG SIGH
I guess one day you may discover that safer riding is much more than matching your speedo to the maximum speed.

Um... I discovered that long ago. Way before I even started riding (or driving). I guess you missed my point that this is what drivers will do when their only concern is fear of a speeding ticket?

**Berries** · 3rd January 2014, 22:47

Originally Posted by R650R

Sssssshhhhhhh don't remind the traffic/govt boffins about these casinos... There are still a few of them about, usually in places where there wold otherwise be a 70 zone between a 100 and a 50 etc. from memory there were five criteria, one on their own enough to reduce limit to 50. Rain, traffic, lighting, and???

Rain? How much? Persistent or just spitting?
Traffic? How much?
People on the road? How many, how old?

There were so many variables it is no wonder they got rid of them. The road being in poor condition was one of the other factors - try defining that one. Those LSZs that you see around don't have any legal status now as the legislation does not allow for them. I am guessing that they default to 100km/h unless in an urban area where it defaults to 50.

**scracha** · 4th January 2014, 07:53

Originally Posted by Berries

Rain? How much? Persistent or just spitting?
Traffic? How much?
People on the road? How many, how old?

There were so many variables it is no wonder they got rid of them. The road being in poor condition was one of the other factors - try defining that one. Those LSZs that you see around don't have any legal status now as the legislation does not allow for them. I am guessing that they default to 100km/h unless in an urban area where it defaults to 50.

Seem to manage it in France OK. From memory, speed limit there reduces from 130 to 110 when it rains or snows.

**Ocean1** · 4th January 2014, 08:39

Originally Posted by scracha

Seem to manage it in France OK. From memory, speed limit there reduces from 130 to 110 when it rains or snows.

Perhaps they don't have a "greatest enforceable risk" policy driving their road rules.

**scracha** · 4th January 2014, 17:43

Originally Posted by Ocean1

Perhaps they don't have a "greatest enforceable risk" policy driving their road rules.

I've no idea what that means but I do recall them basically turning a blind eye unless you were being an arsehole in built up areas or going stupidly fast. Seemed more interested in solving actual crime. Funny that.

**scumdog** · 4th January 2014, 19:07

Originally Posted by scracha

Seemed more interested in solving actual crime. Funny that.

Maybe if NZ still had dedicated traffic cops and the police were a separate organisation people wouldn't think along those lines...and be happier with traffic guys stopping them/enforcing speed limits etc ..

**Damantis** · 4th January 2014, 19:25

Originally Posted by scumdog

Maybe if NZ still had dedicated traffic cops and the police were a separate organisation people wouldn't think along those lines...and be happier with traffic guys stopping them/enforcing speed limits etc ..

As long as they didn't cruise around, pretending to be cops, and actually did some positive public relations, along with educating people about more aspects of their driving that just that obvious old chestnut of speed. I mean things like lane compliance, timely indication, following distance, cellphone use, hazard identification, driving to the conditions, and stuff like that.

It's easy the nostalgically view the past as something it wasn't. What we had was revenue collecting wannabe cops with porn-stashes and aviator sunglasses given a license to drive fast and beat people up, on a power trip, while the regular police took two weeks to turn up to a burglary.

**scumdog** · 4th January 2014, 19:49

Originally Posted by Damantis

It's easy the nostalgically view the past as something it wasn't. What we had was revenue collecting wannabe cops with porn-stashes and aviator sunglasses given a license to drive fast and beat people up, on a power trip, while the regular police took two weeks to turn up to a burglary.

That was your view of the past, through a half empty glass too it seems....

I certainly had several 'run-ins' with the MOT (Hell, my one speeding ticket was from one in '87!).

But not ever being burgled back then I cannot comment on police response time. - which as now probably varied from district to district. Generally I got on well with them though, even as a long-haired scruffy drunken yahoo of a freezing worker that I was back then.

But I'm not bitter about anything trivial as 'cops aren't doing their job properly' shit...life is too short.

**roogazza** · 5th January 2014, 07:32

Originally Posted by scracha

I've no idea what that means but I do recall them basically turning a blind eye unless you were being an arsehole in built up areas or going stupidly fast. Seemed more interested in solving actual crime. Funny that.

Pretty much how it was !

**SPman** · 5th January 2014, 17:05

Originally Posted by bluninja

Well I looked at the current online poll stats (4500 respondents) and it seemed that there were 56% didn't want a 4 kmh tolerance all year round. Interesting spin though.....

"The poll showed that two-thirds of respondents felt that the policy was fair because it was about safety"

Interesting - the Milgram effect in action!
First - tell everyone it's all about safety...that gets them going for starters (it must be for my own good). Then, approximately 2/3rds of the population " will do what they are told to do, irrespective of the content of the act and without limitations of conscience,etc, because they perceive the command comes from a legitimate authority!"

**cheshirecat** · 5th January 2014, 19:13

Originally Posted by scumdog

That was your view of the past, through a half empty glass too it seems....

I certainly had several 'run-ins' with the MOT (Hell, my one speeding ticket was from one in '87!).

But not ever being burgled back then I cannot comment on police response time. - which as now probably varied from district to district. Generally I got on well with them though, even as a long-haired scruffy drunken yahoo of a freezing worker that I was back then.

But I'm not bitter about anything trivial as 'cops aren't doing their job properly' shit...life is too short.

So in those days you got the bike going long enough to get a ticket - better "luck" then me then.