Advertise with Kiwi Biker
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 36

Thread: Paekakariki speed limit

  1. #16
    Join Date
    13th March 2003 - 11:47
    Bike
    1994 VFR750F, 2004 WR250F, 2006 XR250L
    Location
    Porirua
    Posts
    7,271
    Quote Originally Posted by Ulsterkiwi View Post
    They actually lowered the limit on the Northern section of the hill road to 60 a while ago. Its 60 for the entire length now.
    The only reason I said that is because it is briefly 70 at the Paekak end because the 60 sign is just after the turn off up the hill a bit and not right at the corner isn't it so as not to confuse speeds on SH1 as that is set at 70?
    Cheers

    Merv

  2. #17
    Join Date
    4th June 2013 - 17:33
    Bike
    R1200GSA
    Location
    Kapiti
    Posts
    1,009
    Quote Originally Posted by merv View Post
    The only reason I said that it is briefly 70 at the Paekak end is because the 60 sign is just after the turn off up the hill a bit and not right at the corner isn't it so as not to confuse speeds on SH1 as that is set at 70?
    You are quite correct.
    Ironically, many don’t seem to realise the limit on SH1 at the turn off for the hill is 70 not 80


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Life is not measured by how many breaths you take, but how many times you have your breath taken away

  3. #18
    Join Date
    13th March 2003 - 11:47
    Bike
    1994 VFR750F, 2004 WR250F, 2006 XR250L
    Location
    Porirua
    Posts
    7,271
    Quote Originally Posted by Ulsterkiwi View Post

    Ironically, many don’t seem to realise the limit on SH1 at the turn off for the hill is 70 not 80

    That's what I said to Jelly on the previous page and put the Google street view link for the signs at the south end.

    That was lowered when they were mulling over what to do with the intersection which is still an abortion really. They put the median strip kerb on SH1 to stop you turning right off the hill road but you still have to enter SH1 to then pull in where the old BP was to do the loop back. Surely they could have done something better? I think the problem is no big investment went into it because all the money is going into Transmission Gully.
    Cheers

    Merv

  4. #19
    Join Date
    4th June 2013 - 17:33
    Bike
    R1200GSA
    Location
    Kapiti
    Posts
    1,009
    Quote Originally Posted by merv View Post
    That's what I said to Jelly on the previous page and put the Google street view link for the signs at the south end.

    That was lowered when they were mulling over what to do with the intersection which is still an abortion really. They put the median strip kerb on SH1 to stop you turning right off the hill road but you still have to enter SH1 to then pull in where the old BP was to do the loop back. Surely they could have done something better? I think the problem is no big investment went into it because all the money is going into Transmission Gully.
    And yet the utes and vans I referred to, do in fact turn right there on a regular basis. It’s certainly a bollox of an intersection. TG will hopefully lift the pressure off that stretch of road.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Life is not measured by how many breaths you take, but how many times you have your breath taken away

  5. #20
    Join Date
    13th March 2003 - 11:47
    Bike
    1994 VFR750F, 2004 WR250F, 2006 XR250L
    Location
    Porirua
    Posts
    7,271
    Quote Originally Posted by Ulsterkiwi View Post
    And yet the utes and vans I referred to, do in fact turn right there on a regular basis. It’s certainly a bollox of an intersection. TG will hopefully lift the pressure off that stretch of road.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    As in they don't do that silly loop to the left thing, do they just cut past the edge of the median strip and sneak north kind of in the south bound lane for a little bit, is that what you are saying?
    Cheers

    Merv

  6. #21
    Join Date
    4th June 2013 - 17:33
    Bike
    R1200GSA
    Location
    Kapiti
    Posts
    1,009
    Quote Originally Posted by merv View Post
    As in they don't do that silly loop to the left thing, do they just cut past the edge of the median strip and sneak north kind of in the south bound lane for a little bit, is that what you are saying?
    Yup. Seen it happen many a time


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Life is not measured by how many breaths you take, but how many times you have your breath taken away

  7. #22
    Join Date
    28th May 2006 - 19:35
    Bike
    suzuki
    Location
    lower hutt
    Posts
    6,962
    Quote Originally Posted by rastuscat View Post
    Less speed less harm
    more travel time to be charged to customers too

  8. #23
    Join Date
    13th July 2008 - 20:48
    Bike
    R1200RT LC
    Location
    Paremata
    Posts
    4,055
    Quote Originally Posted by Ocean1 View Post
    How many injuries or fatalities have occurred around there under the legal limit?

    Caus from where I'm standing it looks like every single one of them was substantially over the limit, even back when it was 100k.

    And the injuries and fatality numbers were still used as the reason to lower the limit further.

    Which, outside of the local constabulary's particular echo chamber isn't seen as anything more than complete nonsense.
    Great, that's opened up a channel for further discussion.

    Clive Matthew-Wilson frequently grizzles about speed enforcement, and almost every time he speaks he trots out the line that the majority of crashes happen below the speed limit. Which is likely to be true, as reported by CAS.

    Thing is, there are actually two very separate concepts at play here.

    1. The speed at which a crash happens is a major determinate factor of the kinetic energy imparted in the crash. Less speed, less harm.

    2. Enforcement of the speed limit is a significant influencing factor on the speed that most people travel at. Not all, some folk just don't give a toss.

    So, keeping those concepts separated, engineers want traffic to slow down, so that when crashes happen (and almost certainly they will), they impart less kinetic energy. (Note, no mention of the speed limit in this sentence.)

    There are a few ways to achieve this. These methods generally fall into the categories of engineering, education and enforcement.

    In engineering terms, engineers put in place lower speed limits, and create environments with greater perceptual side friction. E.g. narrow roads, with lots of close side obstacles, cause us to slow down.

    In education terms, ads go in the paper, TV ads talk it up, I bang on on KB, that's education.

    In enforcement terms, the cops write tickets.

    All these things combine to try to reduce the speed that crashes happen at.

    Another concept to consider is the contrast between individual risk and collective risk. In road safety circles, it is considered that if the average speed of the entire fleet reduced by 1%, you'd see a corresponding reduction in both the number of individual crashes, and the resultant harm arising from crashes which occur for whatever reason.

    But as individuals, we consider the issue from our own point of view, with the human trait of optimism bias influencing our thoughts.

    E.g. We each don't think that we are going to crash, so we each don't believe that we should have to slow down.

    I've attended thousands of crashes of various degrees over the years, and in every one of those, if I had asked the drivers if they knew the crash was going to happen, they'd have said no. Because if they had thought it was going to happen, they would have done something different to avoid it. Fault means bugger all when you're lying in the back of an ambulance, so don't even start to think about whose fault the crash is. Think on what you can do, every time you're out and about to reduce your chance of becoming anyones victim.

    That thing you can do to avoid the crash, that's available right here, right now. Leave a decent following distance, don't ride in blind spots, don't ride faster than your skills, or the road surface, or the traffic conditions, safely support. All this stuff is available at no cost, free, to each of us, every day.

    It rather causes me a wry grin when people talk up how atrocious drivers in this country are, then in the next breath insist on their right to go faster. Cool, lets crash at higher speeds.

    Oh, but that's right, we're not going to crash, are we.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    2nd December 2009 - 13:51
    Bike
    A brmm, brmm one
    Location
    Upper-Upper Hutt
    Posts
    2,110
    But let's look at the trend of making things slow
    Slowest roads are the most deadly & true to form the slower our roads are getting the higher our road toll is reaching
    The safest roads are where the mass population decide the speed; most people will travel a safe & comfortable speed. We as quite powerful computers are very good at, well, computing. We can judge shit quite well when left/forced to do it for ourselves.

    There will always be mistakes even those new fan dangled self drive cars are gonna fuck up, nothings perfect. The focus should be on minimizing accidents from happening NOT on increasing the accidents but "softening the blow" such is the current thinking; car manufacturers do a good job of the lessening death, leave it to them
    Science Is But An Organized System Of Ignorance
    "Pornography: The thing with billions of views that nobody watches" - WhiteManBehindADesk

  10. #25
    Join Date
    4th June 2013 - 17:33
    Bike
    R1200GSA
    Location
    Kapiti
    Posts
    1,009
    Quote Originally Posted by rastuscat View Post
    It rather causes me a wry grin when people talk up how atrocious drivers in this country are, then in the next breath insist on their right to go faster. Cool, lets crash at higher speeds.

    Oh, but that's right, we're not going to crash, are we.
    Actually I wasn't arguing for the freedom to go faster. A 100kph limit on that road is ENTIRELY inappropriate. My point was the speed limit reduction on the stretch of road in question does nothing to address the riskiest behaviours exhibited on the road. ergo, the measure is a sop, low hanging fruit or whatever other cliche you want to apply. The only policing you will see on the Paekakariki Hill Road is on the straighter section south of Battle Hill. The straighter section, the only bit of the damn road where it might actually be safe to travel at 80kph. I take satisfaction from trying to negotiate that road as smoothly and as consistent a pace as possible so my actual speed is normally within the posted limit. There is one corner I check my speedo because on occasion I might have gotten to 70, right before that straight because if there is a patrol car anywhere on that road, that is the place it will be sitting. That is how enforcement of speed has affected my behaviour. By the ute drivers who cross the centre line at 80 every other corner North of there, no fucks are given.

    While we are on this topic, I have had this out with serving and past officers before. Police and NZTA send mixed messages about speed with the way they enforce. In the winter its ok to travel at 10kph over the limit, in the summer (with clearer roads and better conditions) you can only travel at 4kph over the limit. Yes I know its about volumes of traffic and the proportion of traffic trying to get somewhere to a deadline but surely it must register with someone that all the general populace hears are the numbers and the resultant conflicting message?
    Speed limits should be enforced, no question . Speed appropriate to the conditions. If speed enforcement is the solution you seem to be making out, why are all the speed restrictions in place in the roadworks happening in the Wellington region at the moment not being enforced? Why are the speed restrictions on the "smart motorway" not being enforced? I travel these roads every day at different times. I do not "feel" a police presence enforcing those restrictions and I am not alone.
    Why do I instead experience tailgating, being cut up, inattention because of drivers focused on their phones (crossing the centre line etc) and feel like these behaviours are not of interest to those patrolling the highways? Again, I am not alone.
    Surely enforcement is in part at least about perception? I do not hear ANY representatives of government or police talking about poor driving behaviours other than speed. Then we have the overwhelming image of our largest city being one huge car park, not much speed there!
    Look I am not naive, I know there are very dedicated professional people on the ground trying their very hardest to make the world we exist in as safe as possible. I do think there is a PR problem and a failure to address strongly held perceptions about policing in particular. One does not break down strongly held beliefs or views by simply dismissing them and and that is what the big bosses seem inclined to do.
    Life is not measured by how many breaths you take, but how many times you have your breath taken away

  11. #26
    Join Date
    28th May 2006 - 19:35
    Bike
    suzuki
    Location
    lower hutt
    Posts
    6,962
    Quote Originally Posted by rastuscat View Post
    Great, that's opened up a channel for further discussion.

    Clive Matthew-Wilson frequently grizzles about speed enforcement, and almost every time he speaks he trots out the line that the majority of crashes happen below the speed limit. Which is likely to be true, as reported by CAS.

    Thing is, there are actually two very separate concepts at play here.

    1. The speed at which a crash happens is a major determinate factor of the kinetic energy imparted in the crash. Less speed, less harm.

    2. Enforcement of the speed limit is a significant influencing factor on the speed that most people travel at. Not all, some folk just don't give a toss.

    So, keeping those concepts separated, engineers want traffic to slow down, so that when crashes happen (and almost certainly they will), they impart less kinetic energy. (Note, no mention of the speed limit in this sentence.)

    There are a few ways to achieve this. These methods generally fall into the categories of engineering, education and enforcement.

    In engineering terms, engineers put in place lower speed limits, and create environments with greater perceptual side friction. E.g. narrow roads, with lots of close side obstacles, cause us to slow down.

    In education terms, ads go in the paper, TV ads talk it up, I bang on on KB, that's education.

    In enforcement terms, the cops write tickets.

    All these things combine to try to reduce the speed that crashes happen at.

    Another concept to consider is the contrast between individual risk and collective risk. In road safety circles, it is considered that if the average speed of the entire fleet reduced by 1%, you'd see a corresponding reduction in both the number of individual crashes, and the resultant harm arising from crashes which occur for whatever reason.

    But as individuals, we consider the issue from our own point of view, with the human trait of optimism bias influencing our thoughts.

    E.g. We each don't think that we are going to crash, so we each don't believe that we should have to slow down.

    I've attended thousands of crashes of various degrees over the years, and in every one of those, if I had asked the drivers if they knew the crash was going to happen, they'd have said no. Because if they had thought it was going to happen, they would have done something different to avoid it. Fault means bugger all when you're lying in the back of an ambulance, so don't even start to think about whose fault the crash is. Think on what you can do, every time you're out and about to reduce your chance of becoming anyones victim.

    That thing you can do to avoid the crash, that's available right here, right now. Leave a decent following distance, don't ride in blind spots, don't ride faster than your skills, or the road surface, or the traffic conditions, safely support. All this stuff is available at no cost, free, to each of us, every day.

    It rather causes me a wry grin when people talk up how atrocious drivers in this country are, then in the next breath insist on their right to go faster. Cool, lets crash at higher speeds.

    Oh, but that's right, we're not going to crash, are we.
    i travel that haywards hill regularly, it's quite ok at 100, now it's just mind numbing to travel at 80 and mind numbing means loss of concentration etc, which can lead to issues and crashes. they spent a lot of time upgrading one section, superwide etc but didn't put a passing lane in, now you've got a road that a lot of people use, tradesman etc, so you've got nana in her barina, you've got a truckload of soil, or a linesmans truck all with regular speed traffic, and a long stretch where there;s no opportunity to pass
    why can't you twat engineers see this and put in a passing lane?

  12. #27
    Join Date
    13th July 2008 - 20:48
    Bike
    R1200RT LC
    Location
    Paremata
    Posts
    4,055
    Quote Originally Posted by jellywrestler View Post
    i travel that haywards hill regularly, it's quite ok at 100, now it's just mind numbing to travel at 80 and mind numbing means loss of concentration etc, which can lead to issues and crashes. they spent a lot of time upgrading one section, superwide etc but didn't put a passing lane in, now you've got a road that a lot of people use, tradesman etc, so you've got nana in her barina, you've got a truckload of soil, or a linesmans truck all with regular speed traffic, and a long stretch where there;s no opportunity to pass
    why can't you twat engineers see this and put in a passing lane?
    It's a question of priorities.

    I did a lot of riding over Haywards when doing Popo motorcycle training. I feel your pain.

    Engineering is the gold plated way to solve crashes. It's the best solution long term. It also happens to be the most expensive. A passing lane is an engineering solution.

    I don't know the priorities of the District Council up there. Possibly it's on their long term plan, possibly it's not, I don't know.

    Have you spoken to them about their priorities, or are you just happy to hit the keyboard.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    24th July 2006 - 11:53
    Bike
    KTM 1290 SDR
    Location
    Wgtn
    Posts
    5,498
    Quote Originally Posted by rastuscat View Post
    Great, that's opened up a channel for further discussion.

    Clive Matthew-Wilson frequently grizzles about speed enforcement, and almost every time he speaks he trots out the line that the majority of crashes happen below the speed limit. Which is likely to be true, as reported by CAS.

    Thing is, there are actually two very separate concepts at play here.

    1. The speed at which a crash happens is a major determinate factor of the kinetic energy imparted in the crash. Less speed, less harm.

    2. Enforcement of the speed limit is a significant influencing factor on the speed that most people travel at. Not all, some folk just don't give a toss.

    So, keeping those concepts separated, engineers want traffic to slow down, so that when crashes happen (and almost certainly they will), they impart less kinetic energy. (Note, no mention of the speed limit in this sentence.)

    There are a few ways to achieve this. These methods generally fall into the categories of engineering, education and enforcement.

    In engineering terms, engineers put in place lower speed limits, and create environments with greater perceptual side friction. E.g. narrow roads, with lots of close side obstacles, cause us to slow down.

    In education terms, ads go in the paper, TV ads talk it up, I bang on on KB, that's education.

    In enforcement terms, the cops write tickets.

    All these things combine to try to reduce the speed that crashes happen at.

    Another concept to consider is the contrast between individual risk and collective risk. In road safety circles, it is considered that if the average speed of the entire fleet reduced by 1%, you'd see a corresponding reduction in both the number of individual crashes, and the resultant harm arising from crashes which occur for whatever reason.

    But as individuals, we consider the issue from our own point of view, with the human trait of optimism bias influencing our thoughts.

    E.g. We each don't think that we are going to crash, so we each don't believe that we should have to slow down.

    I've attended thousands of crashes of various degrees over the years, and in every one of those, if I had asked the drivers if they knew the crash was going to happen, they'd have said no. Because if they had thought it was going to happen, they would have done something different to avoid it. Fault means bugger all when you're lying in the back of an ambulance, so don't even start to think about whose fault the crash is. Think on what you can do, every time you're out and about to reduce your chance of becoming anyones victim.

    That thing you can do to avoid the crash, that's available right here, right now. Leave a decent following distance, don't ride in blind spots, don't ride faster than your skills, or the road surface, or the traffic conditions, safely support. All this stuff is available at no cost, free, to each of us, every day.

    It rather causes me a wry grin when people talk up how atrocious drivers in this country are, then in the next breath insist on their right to go faster. Cool, lets crash at higher speeds.

    Oh, but that's right, we're not going to crash, are we.
    Flawed as the concept of low speed = low risk is, that's not the main problem with that description of one side of a cost/benefit analysis. The main problem is that it completely ignores the other side.

    Which is evident if, (as most of us suspect is the inevitable end result) you take it to its natural conclusion: addressing only the safety related variables will always result in a speed of zero.

    It also ignores any discussion about the function of personal responsibility in the trait that differentiates humans from animals: free will. And on a less philosophical level it completely skips over the effect of risk homeostasis, the fact that the slower people travel the less care they take.

    But that's right, the hive is more important than the individual, which justifies the dodgy ethics and tragically poor science invoked, here, don't it.
    Go soothingly on the grease mud, as there lurks the skid demon

  14. #29
    Join Date
    13th July 2008 - 20:48
    Bike
    R1200RT LC
    Location
    Paremata
    Posts
    4,055
    Quote Originally Posted by Ulsterkiwi View Post
    While we are on this topic, I have had this out with serving and past officers before. Police and NZTA send mixed messages about speed with the way they enforce. .
    I'm with you on that.

    The speed limit gets set. It's the maximum the law says you can do on a road.

    Then the Police say it's okay to do 10 kmh more most of the time, and 4 kmh more anytime. Many Police individually apply an even more liberal tolerance.

    Which leads us to have an expectation of tolerance.

    If we have an expectation of a 10 kmh tolerance, that's why we get all antsy when the tolerance comes down to 4. When we expect a 4 kmh tolerance, it makes the 5 kmh ticket easier to stomach. Not easy, just easier.

    If the limit was treated as the limit, we would accept it better. But the tolerance gets treated as the limit.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    4th June 2013 - 17:33
    Bike
    R1200GSA
    Location
    Kapiti
    Posts
    1,009
    Quote Originally Posted by rastuscat View Post
    I'm with you on that.

    The speed limit gets set. It's the maximum the law says you can do on a road.

    Then the Police say it's okay to do 10 kmh more most of the time, and 4 kmh more anytime. Many Police individually apply an even more liberal tolerance.

    Which leads us to have an expectation of tolerance.

    If we have an expectation of a 10 kmh tolerance, that's why we get all antsy when the tolerance comes down to 4. When we expect a 4 kmh tolerance, it makes the 5 kmh ticket easier to stomach. Not easy, just easier.

    If the limit was treated as the limit, we would accept it better. But the tolerance gets treated as the limit.
    And that is completely in the hands of the enforcement agency not “the people”. Whomever thought it was a good idea to start talking about tolerance and changing that tolerance at different times of the year should be publicly beaten. Those went along with the idea should be as well!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Life is not measured by how many breaths you take, but how many times you have your breath taken away

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •