Que??

[wkid_one]

PS - regardless of Rail - you still need trucks to transport from the Rail Siding to the end Customer....

[spudchucka]

Perhaps someone with more inside knowledge than I have could confirm or refute this. It is certainly my impression - but, hey, anecdotal evidence doesn't count, does it???

(If it is the case, perhaps the rationale is that truckies are all experienced professional drivers and so can be allowed a bit of leeway - not like us amateurs who are just accidents waiting to happen as soon as we hit 101.)

And I know, but wouldn't the roads be a lot more pleasant to ride or drive on if NZ did what most of the rest of the world does and used trains for freight instead of trucks??

Can't really comment as I've never worked and aren't interested in working on highway. However, from what I've seen it doesn't really matter if a truck travels at 80, 90, or 110 because if you crash into one you are f**ked regardless. I've always thought the 80kph speed limit for trucks was stupid as it just hinders other traffic and leads to frustrated drivers making stupid passing moves.

[James Deuce]

Can't really comment as I've never worked and aren't interested in working on highway. However, from what I've seen it doesn't really matter if a truck travels at 80, 90, or 110 because if you crash into one you are f**ked regardless. I've always thought the 80kph speed limit for trucks was stupid as it just hinders other traffic and leads to frustrated drivers making stupid passing moves.

I've never seen an A or B train on the open road drive at less that 110, conditions permitting. I've been monstered by the buggers more times than I care to mention, when I've been travelling at 100km/h and they're supposed to be travelling 10-20 km/hr slower than that.

[MikeL]

However, from what I've seen it doesn't really matter if a truck travels at 80, 90, or 110 because if you crash into one you are f**ked regardless. I've always thought the 80kph speed limit for trucks was stupid as it just hinders other traffic and leads to frustrated drivers making stupid passing moves.

With all due respect, I think this comment is indefensible. If a 30 km/h speed differential is of no consequence, because it makes no difference to the survivability of an oncoming driver/rider in a head-on collision, it must mean that existing speed limits are entirely arbitrary and essentially meaningless, (which makes a nonsense of the current advertising campaign that maintains "the faster you go, the bigger the mess"). The only logical response is then to reduce speed limits to a point where all accidents are survivable.
Why, I wonder, were lower speed limits originally imposed on heavy vehicles? Apart from the effects on the road surface, what were those earlier legislators concerned about? Could it have been a simple law of physics which relates impact to mass x velocity? Who were they trying to protect?

[riffer]

I have a concern about the raising of the limits which I'm not sure has been discussed yet.

If I am trying to stay legal (which I must now, given I'm on 90 demerits), I can't afford to overtake at over 100km/h.

If you increase the speed the trucks are allowed to go to 90km/h you have decreased the speed differential to 10km/h.

Does this now give you enough leeway to safely overtake on a passing lane if you don't actually break the speed limit.

Probably a moot point as I will just change down a couple gears and blast past on the bike, then slow down again, but my cage is a 1500cc Nissan Pulsar and it's just not feasible. You have to plan a passing manouevre a fair bit beforehand.

Is there the potential for a safety issue here in passing manouevres if you obey the speed limit to the letter?

I would be seriously concerned about attempting to pass a large truck doing 90km/h now in my cage... I would be putting myself and my family in big danger. This could possibly lead to worse tailbacks and incredibly stupid passing attempts by less patient souls...

[BritStorm]

Mike L makes a good point. Speed limits and the size of the mess are related. There was soemthing in the paper not so long ago that says that the 'mess' caused by a truck at 80kph caused by the energy that it built up given its weight and speed is the equivalent of an average car travelling at 440 kph, yes, that's right, 440 kph. So the faster you go the bigger the mess is cobblers.

I'm not though advocating massive jumps in the speed limit relative to vechicle type - the roads just aren't good enough here for unrestricted speed as on some European roads, nor or the drivers. It's all a metter of risk and this must take into account the damage a vechcile would cause given its kinetic energy (wieght being the dominant factor), conditions, driver training etc. Its also true that most cars could stop quicker than trucks, and most bikes quicker than most cars.

The point is this should be taken into account by HP and a little common sence applied instead of stiking to arbitary measures which we, thorugh our own choice, decide to stick to or not.

Never mind the physics, we all know we're liable to get fined and points if we get caught breaking the limit. We all set our own speed limit depending on the risk we're prepared to take - of having an accident (and coping with the harm we might do to others) or losing our licenses.

[dangerous]

Having spent some time in and around trucks its quite interesting to hear the comments of the truck drivers regarding car drivers,they're not that much different from what the motorcyclists say.

Recently I got a ride to Picton with a mate who does that run everyday and found the ignorance of the car drivers quite frustrating,if a faster vehicle comes up behind you for F%$Ks sake get outta the bloody way,even when there is room they still don't move over,while I was on the bike every truck I came up behind either moved over or waved me through.

I used to drive a fairly big sucker on the same rd and onto Nelson...... now what car drivers forget is that if I were to pull over then that would mean slowing down and therefor in the situation of windinng up a hill you need a good head of steam to make it to the top at a reasonable speed (so as to not upset the car) then the truck woud have to stoke it up to 100-120 at the foot of the hill.

Now in fairness I would move over when possible or drive at 100 to keep the traffic moving and once again not to up set the other traffic but at this speed I'm already 10-20 over the limit and that is already risking my licence/JOB

Wkid: you seem to be well informed hows that?

[wkid_one]

I've never seen an A or B train on the open road drive at less that 110, conditions permitting. I've been monstered by the buggers more times than I care to mention, when I've been travelling at 100km/h and they're supposed to be travelling 10-20 km/hr slower than that.

Which is interesting Jim - as many of them are governed to 100kph?

[James Deuce]

Which is interesting Jim - as many of them are governed to 100kph?

Governed to 110. My Brother drives Logging trucks and B trains for a living.

[wkid_one]

Governed to 110. My Brother drives Logging trucks and B trains for a living.

Depends on the trucker - many are governed to 100kph (and esp if a B Train carrying full weight) - esp if the driver is running for a larger firm with all their branding across the truck where the potential for whinging drivers to ring and complain is high.

Also - some of the trucks, like the newer Volvos - run with a black box than records data, including speed, which can be very handy in disproving complaints.

The worst to watch out for a drivers bouncing home at night and esp in the middle of the north island - as you will quite often find a couple of trucks racing one another.

Most modern trucks are running with cruise control and automatic speed restrictors similar to pit lane restrictors for when they run through residential areas - which reduces speeding instances.

However at the end of the day most drivers will tell you that they travel at the speed of traffic to prevent inpatient drivers trying to pass them at stupid times. You only have to attend a NZRTA/NRC meeting to hear the horror stories these guys have about car drivers.

I have seen the professionalism of truck drivers increase as more and more of them become Owners Drivers rather than just steerers. The trucks are better maintained and there are less roll overs. I don't however see the need for 580+ HP trucks in NZ however...this is something I can't quite see the need for.

[spudchucka]

I've never seen an A or B train on the open road drive at less that 110, conditions permitting. I've been monstered by the buggers more times than I care to mention, when I've been travelling at 100km/h and they're supposed to be travelling 10-20 km/hr slower than that.

One of the trade offs for the higher limit is that (I understand this is the case but haven't seen it in writing) highway patrol officers will be instructed to enforce a 5kph tolerance on all heavy traffic restricted to the 90 kph speed limit.

[spudchucka]

With all due respect, I think this comment is indefensible. If a 30 km/h speed differential is of no consequence, because it makes no difference to the survivability of an oncoming driver/rider in a head-on collision, it must mean that existing speed limits are entirely arbitrary and essentially meaningless, (which makes a nonsense of the current advertising campaign that maintains "the faster you go, the bigger the mess"). The only logical response is then to reduce speed limits to a point where all accidents are survivable.
Why, I wonder, were lower speed limits originally imposed on heavy vehicles? Apart from the effects on the road surface, what were those earlier legislators concerned about? Could it have been a simple law of physics which relates impact to mass x velocity? Who were they trying to protect?

Indefensible?? I'm simply commenting, as a road user, that in my opinion you are screwed, (especially on a bike) if you collide with a truck regardless of if it is travelling at 80, 90 or 110. You are taking the comment in some other context and using it as an oportunity to flare up about LTSA and the inept tossers who make the rules. So with all due respect, get a grip!

[James Deuce]

Indefensible?? I'm simply commenting, as a road user, that in my opinion you are screwed, (especially on a bike) if you collide with a truck regardless of if it is travelling at 80, 90 or 110.

You're screwed in a car or any forward control vehicle, up to and including a truck of similar mass. Only thing that beats a truck unit is a train.

[Lou Girardin]

Truckies must have immunity. I followed a truck and trailer rig on SH2 at 110 km/h, the local IRD mobile came towrds us, Stalker squealing. Nothing, nada, zilch, the truckie didn't even get the 'naughty, naughty' wave.
Lou

[wkid_one]

With all due respect, I think this comment is indefensible. If a 30 km/h speed differential is of no consequence, because it makes no difference to the survivability of an oncoming driver/rider in a head-on collision, it must mean that existing speed limits are entirely arbitrary and essentially meaningless, (which makes a nonsense of the current advertising campaign that maintains "the faster you go, the bigger the mess"). The only logical response is then to reduce speed limits to a point where all accidents are survivable.
Why, I wonder, were lower speed limits originally imposed on heavy vehicles? Apart from the effects on the road surface, what were those earlier legislators concerned about? Could it have been a simple law of physics which relates impact to mass x velocity? Who were they trying to protect?

Mike I am sorry - but I agree with SC here.

The slowest and most vuneralble 'vehicle' on NZ roads in the bicycle......what speed limit to you propose? 10kph? 20kph? Get off your soap box.

In 99% of instances there is usually someone behind the wheel with a BRAIN - who chooses and desires not to have an accident! Rules and Laws are there to prevent accidents - BUT ONLY AT THE BEHEST OF THE DRIVER...

At the end of the day NOTHING we do has a 100% survival rate. You can choke to death on a Pretzel - shit we better make these choke-proof as well. You can drown in a river? My god we better put 1 trillion bath room anti slip mats in all NZ's rivers, slow them down to max flow rate of 1mC/min and reduce the depth to ankle height.

At the end of the day - driving a car is a risk....so long as you treat it with respect....and drive with your eyes open.....whats the problem.

In all honesty - do you know the stats of cars colliding with trucks and the occupants dying - where the car wasn't at fault for speeding etc??? I would guess this would be a small proportion of vehicle fatalities.

Stop whinging for the sake of whinging. Trucks have a place on our roads as they do the world over - and I would guess MOST of the trucks are in a better condition to speed than many of the cars on our roads.