Safe or unsafe

[oldrider]

Stockdale said: "There is no public road in New Zealand on which 148kmh is safe."

"It would be unsafe regardless of what sort of car you were in, he added."

So I guess we can take it from that he would mean regardless of what sort of motorcycle as well.

I am sure we can all point to roads that this is blatantly untrue for as many are up to exactly the same standard that the German autobahns are with unlimited speed and they don't have a bad safety record.

If humans didn't move at all we are still at risk from floods, pestilence, earthquakes and asteroid strikes so you are right about the 50km/hr comment Paul. AA are just sticking to the party line here.

Here's some photos we took travelling from Munich to Prague. True speed on GPS, I found most of the the locals seemed to typically drive at around 190km/hr max so to hit the magic 200km/hr I had to back off a bit and then speed up to clock it then slow down again. 148km/hr would have been slow. Only the odd Porsche would blast past faster where there was space. You can see armco down the middle and no side barriers yet our powers that be say our expressways (whatever happened to calling them motorways) just aren't up to the required standard and wouldn't be safe above 110km/hr. In Germany they even allowed truck on truck action if the road was only two lanes in that direction (pic is at an on ramp so that is not three lanes and we all had to slow down while that truck passed. If there were three lanes the trucks were forbidden from using the lane closest to the centre.

So food for thought - why are our roads legislated at such low speeds and why do our politicians think they will find success by reducing many of them further?

Reduction in the number of politicians would be a good start to lower cost and get more accountability and positive action on anything that matters? -

[pritch]

I try not to be cynical but... My first thought as I read that was the kid's father's a lawyer and knows the judge. Then I saw the kid is a law student.

Right first time?

[SaferRides]

I thought I would check Mark Stockdale's qualifications and experience to make such sweeping statements. He apparently does not understand that a "legal technicality" is in fact the law.

At least the associate minister had enough sense not to comment.


Mark Stockdale

AA Expert

I've worked for the AA since late 2005, and prior to that spent 9 years as a transport lobbyist at the Bus & Coach Association in Wellington.

My role at the AA includes monitoring and commenting on fuel prices, domestic and global supply trends, renewable fuels, and helping advise motorists on how to reduce their fuel costs. I also advise members on transport issues and law, and research and prepare submissions on transport legislation and policy. I am also the AA representative on various industry stakeholder groups.

[Scuba_Steve]

Ability of driver alone makes a huge difference whether 148km/h is safe or not. In Suzuki Swift, it would not be my choice. In an Audi R8, it be easily and safely doable on most roads (without sharp bends or turns).

FTFY

Type of car makes a difference in safety ONLY when impacting

[onearmedbandit]

FTFY

Type of car makes a difference in safety ONLY when impacting

Nope. Not at all.

[TheDemonLord]

There is NO indication by Government that might suggest a change to the Land Transport Act is pending. As such ... all higher speed traffic offenses will be treated in exactly the same manner. And ... with the same charges as are currently applied to those caught roadside at such speeds.

Location location location ... still is the criteria applied at sentencing. And always will be ... well by one judge anyway ...

No change to the Legislation, however it sounds like from the Judge's interpretation that it may now be precedent that a defense against the charge of Dangerous driving (not speeding) will be to prove, absent citing the speed, that there was Danger.

[Berries]

While I have no issue with the speed itself and would be a total hypocrite if I did, I do agree with comments by Greg Murphy about age and experience being overlooked.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/new...eg-murphy-says

[Jeeper]

FTFY

Type of car makes a difference in safety ONLY when impacting

Not entirely correct. Grip and aerodynamics play a big role when cars start exceeding 100+ kmph. Suzuki Swift doing 148 kmph is more likely to contribute to loss of control, versus Lamborghini Avantador at the same speed, driver ability and road conditions.

[TheDemonLord]

While I have no issue with the speed itself and would be a total hypocrite if I did, I do agree with comments by Greg Murphy about age and experience being overlooked.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/new...eg-murphy-says

Murph has always had some good insight to driving issues.

[Bonez]

I try not to be cynical but... My first thought as I read that was the kid's father's a lawyer and knows the judge. Then I saw the kid is a law student.

Right first time?

Apprently they were Russian.

[Moi]

"Dangerous" driving - according to the judge it did not tick the boxes required for his driving to be considered 'dangerous'. However, was it driving of a responsible and/or thinking driver/rider? Was he driving in a responsible manner?

The AA spokesman says there are no roads in NZ on which a speed of 150km/h is safe... I'd suggest that the section of the Kapiti Expressway between Paraparaumu and the northern end could qualify, so could sections of the Waikato Expressway with the proviso that the driver was capable of driving at that speed and the vehicle in question was also suitable. And I am sure there are other sections of road where such speed would be safe provided the conditions at the time were appropriate.

Would I want to attempt such speed in a Suzuki Swift? Doubt it. What about an SUV? No way! What about a current model Commodore - yeah, the Opel in roo skin - possibly. And the 'possibly' would depend on a number of factors: weather, road conditions, traffic conditions, vehicle condition, my own state-of-mind...

I think Stockdale has missed an opportunity for a sensible and reasoned discussion/conversation round the concept of responsible driving and what that entails.

[Scuba_Steve]

Not entirely correct. Grip and aerodynamics play a big role when cars start exceeding 100+ kmph. Suzuki Swift doing 148 kmph is more likely to contribute to loss of control, versus Lamborghini Avantador at the same speed, driver ability and road conditions.

But a good driver won't exceed the capabilities of either making them the most dominate force in safety. If the swift can't do 148km/h a good driver wouldn't take it there.

A Lambo with a drongo behind the wheel is gonna be more dangerous than the Swift with Greg Murphy behind the wheel. Sure Greg can probably go harder & faster in the Lambo but that doesn't make the Lambo 'safer' as a rule, least not until it impacts & the advanced safety features kick in

[Jeeper]

I said same driver ability. Comparing like for like, car makes a huge difference in how they behave in like situations.

[MD]

For me it always come back to time and place. I've driven that road a fair few times and, I can't believe I'm saying this, but 148kph in a car seems a bit beyond even my generous personal 'tolerance level'

I do praise the Judge though for not accepting that speed alone is the only test required for dangerous driving.

[F5 Dave]

FTFY

Type of car makes a difference in safety ONLY when impacting

Your next post after this one trys to talk around this post. You said 'only'. In capitals.

If you've ever driven a tiny little shitbox, say my old flatmates daihatsu, it felt unstable at much more than 50 and you could induce ever increasing oscillations by tweaking the wheel going uphill.

In an emergency move I think my van would be safer, and a modern car with abs, braking stabilisers and decent dampers would help most people be safer.

All this stuff is BEFORE impact.

I claim internet bragging rights and you can imagine me doing a little victory dance. Except I'm tired so I'm not really.