Police are planning...

[KATWYN]

I'm not having a go at you and I know as well it can be difficult to keep sports bikes at the 50kph speed limit but being able to maintain a constant speed without continually looking at the speedo is a pretty basic skill. Personally I can tell my speed pretty much bang on by the pitch of the engine, the sound of my tyres etc and don't need to more than glance at the speedo occasionally.

No offense taken. I would have to agree with you on that if I'm on the bike. I shouldve mentioned that I was speaking about when im driving the car, I dont find it easy.

[spudchucka]

I have been deliberately provocative because it irritates me to hear the same oversimplistic dogma spouted again and again.

Sorry but you didn't present anything other than the same oversimplistic dogma that is spouted by the section of society that habitually speeds as if it is their right to do so.

Or a cockhead (check back spud - Alzheimers?)

Ohh, did you think that was directed at you?

Spud is sure that there is evidence that policing the limit reduces accidents - not so. Check out LTSAs own data.
Injury accidents have gone up from 194 per 100,000 to 234 per 100,000 people since 2000
The LTSA often uses stats per 100,000 vehicles and they generally look good - why ? because the country is being flooded with imported cars many of which don't kill people because they are parked up somewhere as a second car.

Read back again mate. I have said that policing the speed limit has an impact on trauma suffered in due to crashes. This is supported by the declining road toll despite the increase in the number of vehicles on the road.

Fatal accidents have reduced but the trend has been very steadily downward since 1970 and so quite likely nothing to do with policing speed but better roads, better cars and very importantly better medicine. We are far better at salvaging badly damaged people than we were say 6 years ago.

All true but none of that changes the fact that speed and crashes promote injury.

The same test at 100kph would result in total destruction of the vehicle and very likely the occupants too. So these tests would suggest a 40mph limit is too high. Such a high proportion of motorcyclists die in crashes at 100kph that a higher limit is probably irrelevant in terms of fatality after a crash.

Not so. Many 100 kph crashes are survived. When the crash speed increases to 120 the severity of the impact is increased by a factor of 4. (from memory ok, I'll have to check research but that is as I recall).

What you do have at 100 compared to 120 is more time.

And that can save lives!

In fact, a huge number of other factors affect the time you have including, importantly, your state of alertness. You can halve your reaction time by being alert.

True but the law can't legislate or test for peoples state of alertness each time the elect to drive.

It is certainly no argument for a 100kph limit in view of the fact that even with a seatbelt and airbag, it's almost impossible to survive a direct collision with a fixed object or slow-moving vehicle if you're going 100kph.

This is rubbish!

So the issue is about deciding the level of risk we are willing to accept.

Personally or as a society?

There are ALWAYS other factors and this means that a rigidly enforced speed limit is hopelessly flawed

Its about trauma reduction, not just crash reduction!

Yes it would increase the risk of dying in the crash but we have already accepted a level of risk is inevitable and you are pretty much buggered at 100 anyway.

"If I crash at 100 kph I will die and so will anyone else that is involved in the crash, therefore I will travel at what ever speed I like as it will make no difference to the outcome". This is some seriously arogant, ignorant and warpped logic.

As much as some people would like this issue to be black and white it is not. The current drive towards tighter enforcement of the 100kph limit is not rational and will result in many more fines, much more public anger and minimal change in behaviour and even less in the desired outcomes. I think we should be bold, do what Montana did and decide on some indicators for Reasonable and Prudent speed. But I'm a realist and know lots of people are not ready for that much trust so would settle for plenty of tolerance.

I'm not closed to new ideas at all and I don't believe the police are either, the LTSA may be another matter though. As far as trauma reduction goes it is a black and white arguement. New Zealand drivers have proven themselves many times over to be incapable of being responsible enough drivers to be left to their own devices and I'm afraid that it is attitudes like the ones you have displayed that are largely to blame.

[wkid_one]

Sorry but you didn't present anything other than the same oversimplistic dogma that is spouted by the section of society that habitually speeds as if it is their right to do so.


Ohh, did you think that was directed at you?


Read back again mate. I have said that policing the speed limit has an impact on trauma suffered in due to crashes. This is supported by the declining road toll despite the increase in the number of vehicles on the road.


All true but none of that changes the fact that speed and crashes promote injury.


Not so. Many 100 kph crashes are survived. When the crash speed increases to 120 the severity of the impact is increased by a factor of 4. (from memory ok, I'll have to check research but that is as I recall).


And that can save lives!


True but the law can't legislate or test for peoples state of alertness each time the elect to drive.


This is rubbish!


Personally or as a society?


Its about trauma reduction, not just crash reduction!


"If I crash at 100 kph I will die and so will anyone else that is involved in the crash, therefore I will travel at what ever speed I like as it will make no difference to the outcome". This is some seriously arogant, ignorant and warpped logic.


I'm not closed to new ideas at all and I don't believe the police are either, the LTSA may be another matter though. As far as trauma reduction goes it is a black and white arguement. New Zealand drivers have proven themselves many times over to be incapable of being responsible enough drivers to be left to their own devices and I'm afraid that it is attitudes like the ones you have displayed that are largely to blame.

Well fuck me if that reply wouldn't have taken ages to do

[spudchucka]

Spud is sure that there is evidence that policing the limit reduces accidents - not so. Check out LTSAs own data.
Injury accidents have gone up from 194 per 100,000 to 234 per 100,000 people since 2000
The LTSA often uses stats per 100,000 vehicles and they generally look good - why ? because the country is being flooded with imported cars many of which don't kill people because they are parked up somewhere as a second car.

Some light reading for you.

http://www.acc.org.nz/acc-publicatio...with-speed.pdf

http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/publications/docs/sdwp3.pdf

[madandy]

I'm not closed to new ideas at all and I don't believe the police are either, the LTSA may be another matter though. As far as trauma reduction goes it is a black and white arguement. New Zealand drivers have proven themselves many times over to be incapable of being responsible enough drivers to be left to their own devices and I'm afraid that it is attitudes like the ones you have displayed that are largely to blame.

New Zealand drivers in general? I think thats the attitude that pisses some people off - The Gov't and LTSA can't be bothered differentiating between the responsible and irresponsible.Once again it must be too hard or too expensive.

[spudchucka]

New Zealand drivers in general? I think thats the attitude that pisses some people off - The Gov't and LTSA can't be bothered differentiating between the responsible and irresponsible.Once again it must be too hard or too expensive.

Or simply not practicle.

[spudchucka]

I don't know how they expect to get those extra speeding tickets because where I work in the last 2 - 3 years it has become increasingly harder to find people speeding. My own personal assessment, from what I see every day is that most people sit around 55 - 58 kph in town. I don't spend a lot of time in 100kph areas but when I do I see people by and large sticking to around 98 - 105kph.

Sadly I might have to retract this statement after yesterdays effort.

Sum total for the day:
8 drivers warned for speed up to 64kph

10 x speeding tickets ranging from 65 - 88 kph. One was a biker snatched at 87. Another a middle aged female caught at 88kph overtaking in a residential area and then ran a red light trying to evade police. Another was a woman aged about 65 nabbed at 76kph.

One idiot riding a clapped out scooter without a helmet.

Two unsafe vehicles written off the road.

And just to prove that you can police the road and do REAL police work too,

1 x report of wilfull damage
2 x reports of domestic burglary
1 x burgler locked up from a DNA hit sampled from an exhibit found at the scene.
2 x juvenile offenders caught and locked up for breaking into cars.

Not a bad days work overall.

[Quasievil]

Sadly I might have to retract this statement after yesterdays effort.

Sum total for the day:
8 drivers warned for speed up to 64kph

10 x speeding tickets ranging from 65 - 88 kph. One was a biker snatched at 87. Another a middle aged female caught at 88kph overtaking in a residential area and then ran a red light trying to evade police. Another was a woman aged about 65 nabbed at 76kph.

One idiot riding a clapped out scooter without a helmet.

Two unsafe vehicles written off the road.

And just to prove that you can police the road and do REAL police work too,

1 x report of wilfull damage
2 x reports of domestic burglary
1 x burgler locked up from a DNA hit sampled from an exhibit found at the scene.
2 x juvenile offenders caught and locked up for breaking into cars.

Not a bad days work overall.

I managed the dishes YAWN YAWN

[scumdog]

I managed the dishes YAWN YAWN

Must of stretched yourself to achieve that much Q.E?

[scumdog]

New Zealand drivers in general? I think thats the attitude that pisses some people off - The Gov't and LTSA can't be bothered differentiating between the responsible and irresponsible.Once again it must be too hard or too expensive.

Yeah,they STILL havent completed developement of the "stupidoscope" so they can tell the difference between irresponsibe and responsible drivers, however the Govt. will probably be quite keen on the method you would want for telling the difference - especially if it is cheap, reliable, simple to use and 100% accurate.

[Quasievil]

Yeah,they STILL havent completed developement of the "stupidoscope" so they can tell the difference between irresponsibe and responsible drivers, however the Govt. will probably be quite keen on the method you would want for telling the difference - especially if it is cheap, reliable, simple to use and 100% accurate.

I heard the Japs are working on one now

[modalx]

CORRECTION

Earlier I said that even with a seat belt and air bag it was almost impossible to survive a direct collision with a fixed object or slow moving vehicle at 100kph. Someone said that was rubbish so I checked and it turns out I was exaggerating. There are lots of problems in working this out (maybe all cars should be fitted with black-boxes so we can get this right) but the best numbers I can find suggest the chance of dying in this situation is somewhere between 64 and 78%. Hope everyone feels safer!

[pete376403]

Technology hasn't made that much of a difference. The current speed limit was introduced some time in the 1980's, don't remember the exact year. Prior to that it was 80kph.

Prior to metrication the open road limit was 55 miles per hour and had been for a rather long time. This was considered a safe maximum speed when a mark II Zephyr represented the pinnacle of technology, running on 5 inch wide crossplies. briefly the speed limit was dropped to 50 MPH with first oil crisis, along with carless days. This was only to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to do with road safety. After these ideas were dropped (along with Muldoon) the limit went back up to 55 MPH. Converting this to metric would have resulted in an 88 KPH speed limit, so it was raised to 100 KPH (or 60 MPH in the old money.)
So the limit is pretty arbitrary, and takes little account of the vastly superior technology cars & bikes use now.

[marty]

the limit is not arbitrary. it is based on formula, research and lessons learnt, using the principle of TLV -Threshold Limit Value - that is a limit that MOST people will be comfortable with. The same formula is applied to chemical and biological levels in the atmosphere/ground - eg, a product (lets say benzine) has a 'safe' level of 500ppm in air. some people will be sensitive at a much lower level, some will be able to tolerate it much higher. the same issue goes for a speed limit. some can easily cope at twice the limit, most are safe at or near to the speed limit, and some shouldn't be allowed out of their driveway, or they'll break out in a rash

[madandy]

Yeah,they STILL havent completed developement of the "stupidoscope" so they can tell the difference between irresponsibe and responsible drivers, however the Govt. will probably be quite keen on the method you would want for telling the difference - especially if it is cheap, reliable, simple to use and 100% accurate.

Responsibility would easily be ascertained in driver education/training practise.People who take their riding/driving seriously are paying out from their own pockets for advanced skills training and maintain their vehicles meticulously.

As for the "stupidoscope" just take a look around you next time you're out on the road...tailgating, riding the centre line, failing to indicate, inability to maintain a constant cruising speed, poor cornering lines, braking mid bend, speeding up on passing lanes with no intention of passing etc etc...all are signs of incompetence and easily spotted.