Police getting tougher on speed tolerance

[speedpro]

So (a) how many have got tickets for 1kph over the speed limit?

And (b) does not a lower speed at time of impact not ( generally) result in less damage to all concerned?

a - from 2015, media coverage of spoutings from a Police spokesdick suggested a "0" tolerance, i.e. - 1Kmh over and you get a ticket.
b - if the impact is avoided then speed is irrelevant.

Plumber I was using at work had a person pull out in front of him last December(2017). His latest surgery was in November(2018). Other than the fact both vehicles were moving, speed was not a factor.

Motorcyclist killed near Johnsonville recently. Car driver going the wrong way on the motorway, speed was not a factor. As an aside to this particular event, if they had both been keeping to the left unless overtaking, they would have harmlessly passed each other by.

Multiple head-on crashes over this Christas/New Year period. Was speed a factor that caused the head-on crash? Speed will have contributed to the outcome BUT did it cause the crash? If not, which I suspect given my own observations, then why isn't what "caused" the accident being addressed, or is that too hard?

Not having a crash is preferable, surely? I wouldn't care if the other driver was going slow enough that I didn't die. I would prefer not to have the crash.

[Murray]

The faster you go the bigger the impact! what part of that do you not understand? It is not about speed causing the accident!

[husaberg]

a - from 2015, media coverage of spoutings from a Police spokesdick suggested a "0" tolerance, i.e. - 1Kmh over and you get a ticket.
b - if the impact is avoided then speed is irrelevant.

Plumber I was using at work had a person pull out in front of him last December(2017). His latest surgery was in November(2018). Other than the fact both vehicles were moving, speed was not a factor.

Motorcyclist killed near Johnsonville recently. Car driver going the wrong way on the motorway, speed was not a factor. As an aside to this particular event, if they had both been keeping to the left unless overtaking, they would have harmlessly passed each other by.

Multiple head-on crashes over this Christas/New Year period. Was speed a factor that caused the head-on crash? Speed will have contributed to the outcome BUT did it cause the crash? If not, which I suspect given my own observations, then why isn't what "caused" the accident being addressed, or is that too hard?

Not having a crash is preferable, surely? I wouldn't care if the other driver was going slow enough that I didn't die. I would prefer not to have the crash.

I think the reasoning is its easier to police the speed than the dangerous driving is, its simpler and not as subjective, They have just picked the easier less subjective option.

[Scuba_Steve]

The faster you go the bigger the impact! what part of that do you not understand? It is not about speed causing the accident!

Not quite that simple tho is it?
30Tonne truck at the old 80km/h will do the same damage as a old 80's 1Tonne car at 440km/h
It's not about speed causing the accident, it's the inforcement of speed being detrimental to road & public safety at large

[speedpro]

The faster you go the bigger the impact! what part of that do you not understand? It is not about speed causing the accident!

It isn't hard to understand.

I think more(some) effort should be put in to avoiding the impact, not just lessening the consequence of an impact. The main message about driving, in particular holiday period driving, focuses on speed and reducing it to lessen the death and mayhem "when" an impact happens?

I'll give you 3 choices
1 - high speed impact
2 - lower speed impact
3 - no impact.

I prefer #3 myself.

Why isn't there some effort in trying to achieve #3 instead of the low hanging fruit(#2)?. My thoughts are that avoided crashes are hard to record and quantify. The media sure never writes articles about how the number of crashes, of any severity, has reduced. not often anyway.
It's the same idiotic logic that sees a 100kmh stretch of road have the speed reduced to 90kmh after a few bozos doing 140kmh crash. The bozos weren't obeying the 100kmh limit. What logic tells the NZTA that they will obey a lower limit? The only drivers obeying the lower limit are us law abiding types. Plus on this particular piece of road I'm thinking of, I've heard a rumour(cough) of it being navigated successfully at a lot higher speed, so I wonder if speed was actually a factor in the crashes at all or was it primarily incompetence? Incompetence leading to driving at a speed higher than suitable for the situation, vehicle, and driver ability. I'm not starting a discussion about measuring ability though I do wonder how many NZ drivers would manage to obtain a licence in say Germany.

[jellywrestler]

Motorcyclist killed near Johnsonville recently. Car driver going the wrong way on the motorway, speed was not a factor. As an aside to this particular event, if they had both been keeping to the left unless overtaking, they would have harmlessly passed each other by.

it was three AM and the driver on the wrong side 72 years old, i've no idea how long she'd been on the motorway and still not realised the armco was on the wrong side, so doubt keeping left wasn't very much in her mind. As for the motorcyclist, along there one would assume that he assumed the oncoming car was just an oncoming car, at 100km'h each way the moment he may have suddenly worked out it was on his patch of road would've meant very little time to react, if any,
bit of a freak accident really

[jasonu]

So (a) how many have got tickets for 1kph over the speed limit?

And (b) does not a lower speed at time of impact not ( generally) result in less damage to all concerned?

They should be concentrating on the absolutely abysmal general standard of driving on NZ roads rather than worrying about a couple or so kays over the limit. I visit NZ every couple of years or so and every time the local driving looks to be worse.

Making the drivers license test a LOT harder would be a good start but that isn't as good a cash cow as dishing out bullshit tickets.

[jellywrestler]

They should be concentrating on the absolutely abysmal general standard of driving on NZ roads rather than worrying about a couple or so kays over the limit. I visit NZ every couple of years or so and every time the local driving looks to be worse.

Making the drivers license test a LOT harder would be a good start but that isn't as good a cash cow as dishing out bullshit tickets.

cameras in cop cars catching all offences, the cops rely on the calibrated machines to back them up at the moment so they don't waste their day in court,
Run cameras, they record the evidence, ticket the driver, and then it's not the cops issue anymore as the recorded evidence is there.
maybe then we'll see a change in road behaviour.

[Hoonicorn]

Zero tolerance on speed results in people travelling at 5k or more under the limit. (waits for "it's a limit not a target" comments).

When they are frequently looking at their speed to make sure they haven't crept up over the limit by a few ks means they are spending less time watching the road, watching their speed becomes a distraction for everyone without cruise-control.

Someone commented that it's easier to police speed, I agree. Just stick a speed detector by the side of the road and you'll catch a dozen. Not a single tail-gater or lane swapper who doesn't check their mirrors (or indicates) gets caught, but someone travelling at 106 gets busted. Hell, the worst speeders usually know where all the cameras are and have radar detectors, so they can go 120 and then slow when they get near a camera.

Speed can be an issue if the current weather and road conditions don't support travelling at the posted speed limit (or over the posted limit), or if there is a recommended slower speed on a bend, but for most of us the trigger for accidents are the bad drivers who make dangerous over-takes, tail-gate/rear end, pull out in front of us at stop signs, don't signal when changing lanes, drink and drive, have unsafe vehicles, and generally can't drive for shit and put other road users at risk.

Then we realise why the speed limits are for us, so we have a better chance of surviving when we encounter those idiots on the road.

[FJRider]

They should be concentrating on the absolutely abysmal general standard of driving on NZ roads rather than worrying about a couple or so kays over the limit. I visit NZ every couple of years or so and every time the local driving looks to be worse.

It's always amazing how the driving standard improves ... when a police car is seen following ... which indicates more of arrogance and laziness than actual ability to drive in my opinion.

[FJRider]

I think the reasoning is its easier to police the speed than the dangerous driving is, its simpler and not as subjective, They have just picked the easier less subjective option.

The biggest issue I've seen the roads in the last month is dangerous overtaking. Even trying to overtake a truck and trailer travelling (governed) at 90 km/hr at 104 km/hr takes time. Often not the best use of time.

[pritch]

They should be concentrating on the absolutely abysmal general standard of driving on NZ roads rather than worrying about a couple or so kays over the limit. .

There are three main approaches to road safety: education, engineering, and enforcement. Two cost money, one rakes it in, guess where the emphasis goes?

Years ago BIKE did an article on causes of accidents in Britain, speed ranked seventh. I doubt anybody near the top of the NZ Police could tell you much about the six causes of accidents rated higher than speed. I'm sure there are people in the police who know, but it's possible nobody asks them.

At one time the head of the Special Tactics Group claimed to have served in the SAS. His claim was later proved to be bogus. To my knowledge there was at least one former SAS soldier serving in the police and likely more, (I know of another who served earlier) but for whatever reason he/they weren't in the STG.

[roogazza]

it was three AM and the driver on the wrong side 72 years old, i've no idea how long she'd been on the motorway and still not realised the armco was on the wrong side, so doubt keeping left wasn't very much in her mind. As for the motorcyclist, along there one would assume that he assumed the oncoming car was just an oncoming car, at 100km'h each way the moment he may have suddenly worked out it was on his patch of road would've meant very little time to react, if any,
bit of a freak accident really

Hell ,that might've been a closing speed of 200 kph , not many people have their brain geared for those speeds. Poor bugger on the bike and yes freaky !!!!!

[husaberg]

The biggest issue I've seen the roads in the last month is dangerous overtaking. Even trying to overtake a truck and trailer travelling (governed) at 90 km/hr at 104 km/hr takes time. Often not the best use of time.

You should talk to the truck driver he keeps to the speed limit and drives all day.
Puts up with having to brake when idiots pass him in stupid places like right at the end of passing lanes or blind corners.
A truck driver will generally indicate and let you through.
i have 10 subordinates all with company vehicles with tracking all the staff get to take them home at night.
interestingly The peak times for speeding are when they are running late to their first job of the day thats not because of traffic or roads its due to not leaving home early enough

[R650R]

Before we get on the road we are all made aware of the "rules of the game" via the driver licence process. Somewhere along the way our confidence evolves and we think we know better and start making our own rules. a lot of that time that works quite well.
But one day your driving to your own rules and another motorist misjudges your speed, your intentions, perhaps even driving to their own rules themselves. Now the margin for error is gone and we have a collision. Safety is about everyone being on the same page and being able to understand what others around you are going to do.
Yes speed isn't the be all and end all cause, but its a tool for the cops to see whose poking their head above the trenches and doing something different... And you only need to watch a few police reality shows to see those just going a little fast often have other issues or messed up ideas.

I work on a job site where the speed limit is only 20km/h with 120 tonne heavy machinery goverened to that speed. You'd think that's plenty of time for decision making but collisions and near misses still happen often due to work pressures and distractions etc And nearly all the operators are pretty top gun at their jobs and driving. So surely out there in the outside world with unknown average joe coming at you a 100k limit is a good idea???

Please speed if you want to, hell even I do on occasion and pay the price... but don't let yourself think you haven't encroached on your own safety margins and increased risk. If you don't accept that your not fully focused on the new risks that has bought into equation.