Kruger-Dunning Parts n Service
That’s the bulk of it, compounded by cost stopping people from driving as much as before.Originally Posted by nerrrd
Fast on the road just equals higher risk taking in 90% of cases. Met couple riders who caught up to me on a journey, I followed them for a bit then let them go. We ended up at same coffee stop. Oh we going that way to want to ride with us? Yeah nah.
Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket - Eric Hoffer
Forum whore
An optimum speed limit is defined as providing maximum benefit from reduced travel times and minimizing the costs of road trauma, environmental emissions and vehicle operating costs.
The results of the analysis confirm that 70km/h is the optimum speed for heavy vehicles, and no more than 85km/h for light vehicles on all but New Zealand’s motorway standard roads.
The overall economic impact if all vehicles travelled at their optimum speeds was estimated to be a saving of $482 million per annum in total social costs or 3.7% reduction in the estimated $13.1 billion annual cost of rural State Highway travel in New Zealand.
So despite all the clamour about higher speeds producing greater economic benefit, actually factoring in other influences than time saved reveals a different picture.
But few if any of us consider the societal impact of our individual behaviour. We look purely at the impact on ourselves.
Harrumph.
Forum whore
what about the boredom factor causing lack of concentration, and the piss off factor too, or are the shiny arses who did this bus commuters who hide from the real world?An optimum speed limit is defined as providing maximum benefit from reduced travel times and minimizing the costs of road trauma, environmental emissions and vehicle operating costs.
The results of the analysis confirm that 70km/h is the optimum speed for heavy vehicles, and no more than 85km/h for light vehicles on all but New Zealand’s motorway standard roads.
The overall economic impact if all vehicles travelled at their optimum speeds was estimated to be a saving of $482 million per annum in total social costs or 3.7% reduction in the estimated $13.1 billion annual cost of rural State Highway travel in New Zealand.
So despite all the clamour about higher speeds producing greater economic benefit, actually factoring in other influences than time saved reveals a different picture.
But few if any of us consider the societal impact of our individual behaviour. We look purely at the impact on ourselves.
Harrumph.
Forum whore
I'd be happy with reduced speeds if we introduced more curves on our roads. There are studies that show roads with frequent curves are safer, factors that may skew this could include less traffic as people seek straight roads, but it also stands to reason that roads with frequent curves require great driver attention.
https://ssti.us/2019/10/28/more-shar...e-roads-safer/
Forum whore
The table is interesting. Were optimum speeds calculated from the ground up or do they have a relationship to the current national speed limit? Seems odd that the max optimum speed on the best roads is pretty much the national speed limit plus a small tolerance whereas the same standard of road overseas could have a much higher speed limit.
I note how the optimum speed for both vehicle types across all roads (apart from the 105) is lower than every one of the current cruise speeds. Was the table produced to support Safe and Appropriate Speeds perhaps? I see that term/measure has quietly been shown the door in the new legislation.
They cannot measure or enforce that so not interested. Ditto fatigue.
In the riders seat
Isn't the largest group of motorcycle accidents "single bike on corner" ?
"If you can make black marks on a straight from the time you turn out of a corner until the braking point of the next turn, then you have enough power."
Forum whore
That would make sense. Would help to weed out those that shouldn't be riding. Win win!
Best Frenemy you could have!
For motorcycles, rural environment: single vehicle loss of control (aka we fuck up)
For motorcycles, urban environment: intersections
Kruger-Dunning Parts n Service
I would call such data a preferred speed rather than optimum when itÂ’s composed of compromises across four different inputs. I agree you can get massive fuel savings and lower tyre costs going slower.An optimum speed limit is defined as providing maximum benefit from reduced travel times and minimizing the costs of road trauma, environmental emissions and vehicle operating costs.
The results of the analysis confirm that 70km/h is the optimum speed for heavy vehicles, and no more than 85km/h for light vehicles on all but New ZealandÂ’s motorway standard roads.
The overall economic impact if all vehicles travelled at their optimum speeds was estimated to be a saving of $482 million per annum in total social costs or 3.7% reduction in the estimated $13.1 billion annual cost of rural State Highway travel in New Zealand.
So despite all the clamour about higher speeds producing greater economic benefit, actually factoring in other influences than time saved reveals a different picture.
But few if any of us consider the societal impact of our individual behaviour. We look purely at the impact on ourselves.
Harrumph.
But in little NZ we canÂ’t afford to blow out travel times with slower speeds. We are short on drivers and vehicles to get job done as it is. Just look at impacts of covid and ksikoura quakes of two good examples of longer travel and reduced labour availability. It took ages for logistics networks to recover from that.
We are very small fish in a big pond, we canÂ’t afford the niceties that would create the perfect low road toll.We have to get our goods to international markets as quickley and efficiently as we can to remain relevant in international markets.
Other wise we go down to proper third world status and all the associated problems from societal breakdown due to job losses.
Just look at impacts of electricity prices. Higher transport costs would push more industries below break even and more cascading job losses.
Many of nz routes you have just enough time to do return journeys with a backload, blow that out and the labour costs and 30-50% loss in asset utilisation is scary maths. Another analogy is overnight courier delivery, it used to mean overnight delivery and the van would arrive at your house at a consistent time. Now youÂ’re not sure what day they might even deliver due to demand. Now envision a scenario where your local supermarket stops getting reliable delivery and youÂ’ll have covid panic buying again.
Maybe the next time the circus comes to town the greens will get there way and weÂ’ll get to see for real what a slower transport network looks like.
Countries that have high speed road (and rail) networks are successful, those that donÂ’t are third world.
Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket - Eric Hoffer
Forum whore
It's remarkable how unproductive dead and seriously injured people are. Like, long term. Expensive too, with the seriously injured costing society more than the deceased.
I get it, I don't want to slow down much at all on my 120 km commute to and from work. 250 kms a day just to get to and from work. Hanmer Springs to Rangiora and back. Good road, bugger all traffic. It flows.
At 100 kmh on the adaptive cruise (true 97) I get 5.3 l/100. At 90 kmh (87 true) I get 4.6 l/100. Mk 7 VW Golf Variant. I tend to use 90 kmh unless I have someone behind me, and there's no place to overtake, as fuel economy matters when I am doing that many km per week just to get to and from work.I'm conscious of anyone behind me wanting to go faster. Lots of places to overtake on that road. The time difference isn't much, and it's a price I'm happy to pay. Time spent comes from my personal day, but money spent on gas comes from my bank account.
I find the slower speed a bit dull on long straights (e.g. Culverden Straight), but generally the 90 (87) is a bit more relaxed than the 100 (97). If I get a chance I hook in behind a B train, those drivers use their cruise at 94 generally, so I just draft behind tham, at 3 seconds following. I like the adaptive.
My musings, I know I'm a generally lone voice on this.
Kruger-Dunning Parts n Service
Nice post. I agree that prob works on a personal level and I might even do the same if living in same circumstances. Now just imagine if the law had now pulled that truck down to 70 on that route it’s a big change in your commute.
My issue is that like all laws pulling everything down has other bigger side effects on everyone to mitigate the risk to a few.
BTW ID recommend a bigger following distance than 3 secs to spot debri in road easier and to get better fuel economy.
Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket - Eric Hoffer
Forum whore
I have the adaptive cruise set to its furthest distance. I must actually check how far that is, my 3-sec estimate could be out.
Yes, I get it, surface apraisal is so important, even in the car.
Hardcore Biker
How much of those just long enough return journeys are setup that way because they are just long enough. ie some bean counter somewhere worked out - if our shops are here then the cheapest place to have a truck go there and back would have the wharehouse here. If travel speeds dropped, then the centres would move closer together, yeah there would be turmoil and shit when the changes happened but long term they would settle out. As they would if the changes went in the other direction as well. Probably the same thing happened, back when they got more strict on truckies and their log books.
Forum whore
From memory (which admittedly is fading, as I don't think much about this stuff any more) I think the highest number of crashes are multiple vehicle, where the fault lies with the driver. But these are generally at lower speeds, so tend not to be fatal. SNAFU*, but not fatal.
*(SNAFU - situation normal, all ***cked up)
The higher proportion of fatals are loss of control on higher speed (generally rural) bends.
I should go back to CAS and have a look again, just to remind myself.
It's all about how you dice up the stats.
Forum whore
I have provided those stats many times on here but for all the effort it is a waste of time. Here's a random list of reasons for some of the fatal bike crashes in 2023 for shits and giggles and a bit of reality -
Right turn against but speeding and drugs
140 in a 50
Reckless riding, 130km/h head on
High speed read end of ute
150km/h. Lost control heavy braking
160km/h, rear ended slowing ute
First ride. Fell off wearing hard hat
Ran red light during pursuit
O/T turning traffic at 120km/h
LOC while cornering in wet
Swung wide too fast head on
Gang ride gone wrong
LOC due to no experience
LOC on corner
Left the road due to inexp
Bike caused head on. Inexp
Gang ride LOC at 125km/h
180km/h on curve, fell off and died. Inexp
Speeding, wrong side of road, drugs
Rear end of car in heavy traffic
Left road hit power pole
LOC for unknown reason. Poss drugs
LOC when cornering. Had L for a week
Lost control racing other
Showing off, crashed at 130, inexp
Rear end of traffic while speeding. THC
Blood 212 post mortem
In summary some of us are idiots and go mental at the wrong time and wrong place and if you have been drinking or have drugs onboard your decision making is compromised. I would suggest that the posted speed limit was irrelevant in most of those crashes.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks