Que??

[MikeL]

I see I'm outvoted on this one, so I'll retire gracefully. No more whinges about truck speeds.

Although I have to say that it's pretty discouraging to see (yet again) rational argument and valid questions dismissed as "whinging for the sake of whinging." Read my posts carefully, guys, and try not to let your egos get too involved...

[Lou Girardin]

I see I'm outvoted on this one, so I'll retire gracefully. No more whinges about truck speeds.

Although I have to say that it's pretty discouraging to see (yet again) rational argument and valid questions dismissed as "whinging for the sake of whinging." Read my posts carefully, guys, and try not to let your egos get too involved...

It really seems a certain element in this forum is determined to shut down debate by any means possible including abuse. Rational argument is impossible with people who can only see black and white.
Keep it up MikeL, remember Voltaire.
Lou

[wkid_one]

I'll bite

My point was simply this - if you legislate for the lowest common denominator - you wouldn't get any where at all. To moan about trucks speeding is fine - however - I would guess only a small proportion of car fatalities involve a situation where the truck was speeding. And - a truck travelling at 80kph when a car hits in at 100kph is hardly going to make much difference than if the truck were doing 100kph. Isn't the issue more to do with the lack of median barriers and general traffic and roading safey than the speed at which a vehicle travels?

I just don't see the rationality in MikeL's comments you are talking about? In fact to the contrary - I see a comment based on stereotype? I don't see how reducing the limit or policing it further will save many fatalities in all honesty? If you hit a truck you hit a truck. Given we are only talking about a truck travelling in the open road - if you hit a truck - 10-20kph is insignificant in any event?

As for the comment about reducing the speed limit to a point in which accidents are survivable - we would never have open road limits? Is this a rational argument?? I don't think so - purely an emotional one.

By whinging about the speeds of trucks drivers - you are actually condoning the same stereotype motorcyclists fall in to - reckless road users. Where in actual fact - for most truck drivers it is a living, a lifestyle and a means of putting food on the table for their families. They can have a fortune invested in their units - take the Volvos running the NZ Post runs - these are the thick end of $450k including trailers.

So in summary - after rereading your posts - I still struggle to see any rationality in it which Lou/You espouse. I do read between the lines an underlying detestation of truck drivers however - which doesn't appear rational.

[SPman]

My point was simply this - if you legislate for the lowest common denominator - you wouldn't get any where at all.

Isnt this what the LTSA already does?

Yes, many truck drivers are professional in their attitude, (but, from my experience, not enough.) I have driven trucks and realise that, yes, most car drivers act like fuckwits. I can see the sensibility of bringing legal truck speeds nearer legal car speeds. In an ideal world, if vehicles travelled at about the same speed, it would probably be safer. But, when it comes to beauracracy, when does sense have anything to do with it.
The LTSA is trying to make the driving Joe Public slow down....speed kills..5k over the limit you're as bad as a junkie, pathological killer, etc. The faster the speed the bigger the mess, etc etc.Then they turn around and up the limit for 42 tonnes of vehicle. So, 1 1/2 tonnes of car or 1/4 tonne of motorbike are safe at 100k but unsafe at 110k and 42 tonne of truck is safe at 90k and unsafe at 95k.
Physics would indicate otherwise.
The LTSA's rationale, to the public, becomes as disjointed and erratic as my post! Of course people get pissed off! They're being told they are irresponsible, reckless and killers if they are over the (arbitrary) limit. Then they are told trucks can legally go faster.! Not as fast as cars, but, hey,we are getting a double message here.

The only answer is a 4 lane highway from North Cape to the Bluff, for all trucks and cars, (with a few branch lines to secondary centres), leaving the bulk of the roading system free for bikes!

[Jackrat]

I'll bite

My point was simply this - if you legislate for the lowest common denominator - you wouldn't get any where at all. To moan about trucks speeding is fine - however - I would guess only a small proportion of car fatalities involve a situation where the truck was speeding. And - a truck travelling at 80kph when a car hits in at 100kph is hardly going to make much difference than if the truck were doing 100kph. Isn't the issue more to do with the lack of median barriers and general traffic and roading safey than the speed at which a vehicle travels?

I just don't see the rationality in MikeL's comments you are talking about? In fact to the contrary - I see a comment based on stereotype? I don't see how reducing the limit or policing it further will save many fatalities in all honesty? If you hit a truck you hit a truck. Given we are only talking about a truck travelling in the open road - if you hit a truck - 10-20kph is insignificant in any event?

As for the comment about reducing the speed limit to a point in which accidents are survivable - we would never have open road limits? Is this a rational argument?? I don't think so - purely an emotional one.

By whinging about the speeds of trucks drivers - you are actually condoning the same stereotype motorcyclists fall in to - reckless road users. Where in actual fact - for most truck drivers it is a living, a lifestyle and a means of putting food on the table for their families. They can have a fortune invested in their units - take the Volvos running the NZ Post runs - these are the thick end of $450k including trailers.

So in summary - after rereading your posts - I still struggle to see any rationality in it which Lou/You espouse. I do read between the lines an underlying detestation of truck drivers however - which doesn't appear rational.

Well how's this for rational.
Iv'e had a guts full of assholes in trucks tail gating me at high speed every time I get on the Matamata Rds.If I can stick to the speed limits I don't see why a so called Pro' driver has such a hard time doing the same thing.
Pro' drivers my ass,,Bloody cowboys more like it.

[MikeL]

Wkid_one:
1. I didn't moan about trucks speeding. I asked legitimate questions about the reasons for specific speed limits, and questioned the logical consistency of the current situation.
2. The argument about reducing the speed limit to a survivability level was clearly hypothetical, to show the arbitrary nature of the speeding laws. Emotion does not enter into it.
3. While I have criticised or questioned official policies and practices I have not denigrated truck drivers. Quite the contrary. If I were to accept any stereotype, it would in fact be that most truck drivers are thoroughly professional and competent. Your defence of them as only trying to put bread on the table for their families is emotive and irrelevant.
4. Your inference that I have an underlying detestation of truck drivers is irrational. I wrote that the roads would be more pleasant for the rest of us if freight was largely confined to rail is my opinion but it can be supported with logical arguments, none of which involve the behaviour of truck drivers.

Rational? emotional? I rest my case.

[dangerous]

Well how's this for rational.
Iv'e had a guts full of assholes in trucks tail gating me at high speed every time I get on the Matamata Rds.If I can stick to the speed limits I don't see why a so called Pro' driver has such a hard time doing the same thing.
Pro' drivers my ass,,Bloody cowboys more like it.

Na na na, you are no were near it JR. Ok there is the odd cowboy around that goes for trucks and bikes.

As far as trucks speeding a driver has a time schedual to deliver and a time that he is aloud on the rd.... we all know this, your not thick now are ya?
So this means that the preasure is put on the driver by those well above him cos if he does not do the job then he will be sent down the rd which is not good if he has a family to feed.

So is speeding his fult, his employers or ours for wanting whatever his cargo is yesterday???????

FWIW I used to pull up to a 20hr day (11hr driving and 14hr on duty is the legal limit) so as my boss would not loose his contract and me my job....do you get it?
I left the job because of these reasons which is a pity cos its a great job being out ther on the open rd, just like biking