More restrictions and speed limits coming up. Announcement 13 December

[davereid]

Speed is of course a factor in ALL accidents.

Lowering the speed at which you travel gives you two advantages ;

1- you get more decision and reaction time
2- the injuries sustained often are less at lower speeds.

Trouble is, any speed above zero is dangerous, kids get backed over in the driveway, yet mums only doing 3km/hr.

Broken record time (all stuff Ive raved about in the past) :

- Accidents are caused by people making mistakes.

The real solution to the road toll comes from road engineering, not from speed limits. And the road engineering only has to do two things - limit the number of opportunities for mistakes to occur, and minimise the effects if they do occur.

Take your average set of traffic lights. they change every 60 seconds, so 1440 times a day a driver, (or actually several drivers) have to make a quick decision.. is it safe to go on through... is it safe to stop... is the guy behind me watching... is that kid gonna step out when the light changes...

A mistake here happens at the posted speed limit, and its likely to be fatal if its a pedestrian or motorcyclist collected.

Yet replace the traffic lights with a roundabout, and that sudden decision is gone. And even if a mistake is made by one driver, its much easier for another motorist to avoid accident.

Another example - the passing lane. Passing is a tricky job at the best of times. Its even harder when you have to stick to the speed limit while passing. Evertime I hear of another head on crash, I know someone made a mistake. Easily cured by passing lanes, and median barriers.

So yes, speed is a factor in ALL accidents. But as long as we persist chasing the speed enforcement god instead of engineering our roads properly we will never lower the road toll.

The current reduction in deaths on our roads is due to better vehicle engineering, not years of fining motorists.

[bell]

Yes, I read the text (it's not that small) . I was not sure if it was supposed to be ironical - journies end in death.

I'd consider overtaking on the crest of a blind hill immeasurably more dangerous than tootling along at a safe but illegal 130 or 140 kph.

And certainly safe but illegal is open to interpretation. But so is legal but unsafe. Why do you assume (as implicitly you do) that a legal speed is a safe speed.

I am regularly overtaken by people driving (legally) at 100kph, when I consider the safe speed to be much less than that. I imagine those same people who are driving legally, but dangerously, are the ones who would get all excited on a later, much safer , stretch of road, when I overtake them, driving safely (but illegally) at 130.

Hmmm, there was some irony in there I believe. "Journey's End" was implying that the biker's journey was possibly about to end I believe.

Assumptions are interesting. I can think of a dozen places that I drive or ride around Nelson where the maximum posted speed of both 50 and 100 is anything but safe, so that puts your theory on my opinions on 'legal speeds being safe speeds' to rest.

[bell]

I can't speak for all riders, but I don't ride any faster now that I have a detector to what I did before. Therefore I would have no additional reason to ride slower without a detector. I choose to ride at a speed that is suitable for the conditions, not because of some arbitrary number dreamed up by someone who doesn't even know me.

Ok. Modification of behaviour won't be an outcome for some of us. I'm curious though: did you get many tickets prior to using a detector? Also, do you think a magistrate would accept the notion of speed limits being arbitrary numbers, and thus credible as a defence if you were, say, facing a loss of licence due to racking up more than the allowed number of demerits?

This might be getting close to the heart of the issue: on what grounds could we justify choosing our own speed limit as an individual on a particular section of road?

[Ixion]

This might be getting close to the heart of the issue: on what grounds could we justify choosing our own speed limit as an individual on a particular section of road?

Assumptions are interesting. I can think of a dozen places that I drive or ride around Nelson where the maximum posted speed of both 50 and 100 is anything but safe, so that puts your theory on my opinions on 'legal speeds being safe speeds' to rest.

Presumably, therefore, in those places ,you do indeed choose your own speed limit, and elect to ride at a speed which is safe, despite any limit (or do you mean that you ride at the limit anyway, despite considering it dangerous)

So, if you feel you are able to choose your own speed limit at speeds up to 100kph (and, presumably, justify your choice), what magical event happens at 100kph that makes it impossible for you to apply the same processes to rationally choose a safe speed at a speed > 100kph?

[Lou Girardin]

Help me out here please Lou: you appear to be claiming that because a driver uses a device to help them evade detection by police when they are speeding, that this makes them a 'safer' driver? Fuzzy logic apparent there.
.

That's exactly what I didn't say, read my post slowly.
I'll also go on record and say that I'm an inveterate speeder, in that I exceed the posted limits. I consider my detector use to be tax avoidance, although I have used them for 22 years. I was once deemed sufficiently skilled to have a legal defence to speeding charges and I'll put my accident history up against anyones. I also note that you own a bike that seems to have a superfluous speed capability for your needs. Why?
So spare me the lectures, I have had them from vastly more qualified people.

[pritch]

I'm already giving serious thought to the way I ride as discussed earlier in another thread. (Although this didn't seem to have taken effect on Friday night.)

I'm also in the process of considering possible replacements for the Hornet. It's only two years old but it's done nearly 40,000. Most likely replacements are a VFR or another Hornet.

If the witless collective that govern us do bring in a blanket 80kph limit, I'll have to start seriously considering a Harley.

[Jantar]

Ok. Modification of behaviour won't be an outcome for some of us. I'm curious though: did you get many tickets prior to using a detector? Also, do you think a magistrate would accept the notion of speed limits being arbitrary numbers, and thus credible as a defence if you were, say, facing a loss of licence due to racking up more than the allowed number of demerits?

This might be getting close to the heart of the issue: on what grounds could we justify choosing our own speed limit as an individual on a particular section of road?

I have received 3 speeding tickets in the past 15 years. two without a detector and one with. I defended one of those tickets and the police dropped the charge. I should have defended the second ticket as I wasn't speeding at the time even though the cop claimed he clocked me at 114 kmh when I knew my speed was not more than 105 kmh, but it would have costmore than the cost of the ticket to take 3 days off work and pay for two nights accomadation. This is what inspired me to get a radar detector. My third ticket was with a detector at 14 kmh over the limit, and it was a fair ticket.

Would a judge accept the notion of speed limits being arbitrary numbers, and thus credible as a defence? I would hope not. He must uphold the law as it is written even when the law is an ass.

On what grounds could we justify choosing our own speed limit as an individual on a particular section of road? I believe Ixion has already answered that for you.

[Jantar]

...if driver is travelling 20km/h over the posted limit and that extra speed eats up their reaction time and then braking time, etc and they have an accident.....their speeding was a direct contributor to that accident. I'm aware of the myriad of other variables that come into play in accidents but to explain my point let's keep it simple...

I believe I'd like to make a further observation on this comment.

There are many bikes that are set up such that it is neccessary to take your eyes off the road in order to read the speedo. My current bike is a good example where I have to take my eyes off the road for aproximately 2 seconds to read the speedo.

So take a hypothetical situation where I'm riding safely down a nice rural road. There is good visibility and no other traffic. I glance down at my speedo and see that it reads 120 kmh. I have 2 choices: Either I continue to ride safely and do not modify my speed; or I can choose to slow down to the legal speed limit. I am curently travelling 32 meters in each second

In the first case I choose to continue at my present speed. Almost immediately I notice a sheep at the side of the road about 200 meters ahead. This sounds a warning in my head so I look closer and sure enough there is a lamb on the other side of the road. I am now only 150 meters away, so I check that my brakes are covered (reduces reaction time) and I watch in case one or the other starts to cross the road. Sure enouth with about 50 meters to go the lamb runs out onto the road. I look at the clear space behind the lamb, veer slightly left and cruise through safely.

In the second case I choose to bring my speed back down to 100 kmh as that is the legal speed. I watch the speedo as I reduce power and after around 2 - 3 seconds I am back to 110 kmh. A quick glance at the road, and I am still on track and no traffic. I do not see the sheep standing at the side of the road. Look back at the speedo for another 2 - 3 seconds and I am now at 100 kmh. I look up and see a sheep at the side of the road about 50 meters ahead, it doesn't look like it is going to move but I watch it anyway. Just as I am passing it there is a hell of a bang and I go sailing through the air. What didn't I see?

Now which do you consider safer: Watching for hazards and riding to the conditions, or mindlessly obeying the speed limit?

[xwhatsit]

I believe I'd like to make a further observation on this comment.

There are many bikes that set up such that it is neccessary to take your eyes off the road in order to read the speedo. My current bike is a good example where I have to take my eyes off the road for aproximately 2 seconds to read the speedo.

So take a hypothetical situation where I'm riding safely down a nice rural road. There is good visibility and no other traffic. I glance down at my speedo and see that it reads 120 kmh. I have 2 choices: Either I continue to ride safely and do not modify my speed; or I can choose to slow down to the legal speed limit. I am curently travelling 32 meters in each second

In the first case I choose to continue at my present speed. Almost immediately I notice a sheep at the side of the road about 200 meters ahead. This sounds a warning in my head so I look closer and sure enough there is a lamb on the other side of the road. I am now only 150 meters away, so I check that my brakes are covered (reduces reaction time) and I watch in case one or the other starts to cross the road. Sure enouth with about 50 meters to go the lamb runs out onto the road. I look at the clear space behind the lamb, veer slightly left and cruise througth safely.

In the second case I choose to bring my speed back down to 100 kmh as that is the legal speed. I watch the speedo as I reduce power and after around 2 - 3 seconds I am back to 110 kmh. A quick glance at the road, and I am still on track and no traffic. I do not see the sheep standing at the side of the road. Look back at the speedo for another 2 - 3 seconds and I am now at 100 kmh. I look up and see a sheep at the side of the road about 50 meters ahead, it doesn't look like it is going to move but I watch it anyway. Just as I am passing it there is a hell of a bang and I go sailing through the air. What didn't I see?

Now which do you consider safer: Watching for hazards and riding to the conditions, or mindlessly obeying the speed limit?

I'm no lunatic speed-demon, but I definitely have to agree with the above post. Obviously on my 250cc thumper, I'm in no danger of zooming off above the 100kph limit without a moment's thought, but quite frequently I find it quite distracting to try and stay at the 50kph limit around town. Constantly glancing at my speedo all the time to try and work out how fast I'm going does take away my attention from the road, I'm sure of it. It's not a problem in traffic, where I can just follow the rest of the cars, but when I'm riding on my own late at night in the suburbs, there are certain situations where travelling at 60-70kph doesn't feel unsafe, or too fast, so the warning bells in your head don't trigger. Not that it's appropriate to do that sort of speed in the suburbs, there are too many other dangerous things around, whereas on the open road I would say there's plenty of situations where travelling >100kph is perfectly safe.

But yeah, there is a point where the law becomes an almost dangerous distraction.

[bell]

Presumably, therefore, in those places ,you do indeed choose your own speed limit, and elect to ride at a speed which is safe, despite any limit (or do you mean that you ride at the limit anyway, despite considering it dangerous)

So, if you feel you are able to choose your own speed limit at speeds up to 100kph (and, presumably, justify your choice), what magical event happens at 100kph that makes it impossible for you to apply the same processes to rationally choose a safe speed at a speed > 100kph?

I might have been more clear ixion. The meaning I intended to convey was that I choose my speed up to the posted limit. Riding at the limit, as some road users feel they must, has its roots in a number of causes. One of these is the tailgating/following too closely behaviour that can lead to drivers feeling pressured to speed up beyond what speed they wish t travel at. Yes, of course, they do have the option of pulling over when safe to allow the traffic behind to pass.

Re your second sentence: rather than it being any 'event', it's what is more broadly termed 'the law'.

[bell]

That's exactly what I didn't say, read my post slowly.
I'll also go on record and say that I'm an inveterate speeder, in that I exceed the posted limits. I consider my detector use to be tax avoidance, although I have used them for 22 years. I was once deemed sufficiently skilled to have a legal defence to speeding charges and I'll put my accident history up against anyones. I also note that you own a bike that seems to have a superfluous speed capability for your needs. Why?
So spare me the lectures, I have had them from vastly more qualified people.

Good on you lou. Did I detect a hint of self-righteousness there re lecuring?

Why my bike? Personal choice lou. Capable all-rounder, sufficient upgrade from the 250 I had to use when I went down the path of getting a NZ class 6 licence. And I liked the colour. There's a few reasons. Speed capability is irrelevant. Having 200km/h+ capability in one's bike does not automatically mean one is going to be immature enough to utilise those capabilities on a public road. Track perhaps, but not public roads.

[bell]

On what grounds could we justify choosing our own speed limit as an individual on a particular section of road? I believe Ixion has already answered that for you.

Choosing one's own limit that is 30, 40, 50 km/h over the legal limit included?

[Jantar]

Choosing one's own limit that is 30, 40, 50 km/h over the legal limit included?

I can't comment on a particular speed. It may be 30, 40 50 km/h under the limit.

[bell]

In the second case I choose to bring my speed back down to 100 kmh as that is the legal speed. I watch the speedo as I reduce power and after around 2 - 3 seconds I am back to 110 kmh. A quick glance at the road, and I am still on track and no traffic. I do not see the sheep standing at the side of the road. Look back at the speedo for another 2 - 3 seconds and I am now at 100 kmh. I look up and see a sheep at the side of the road about 50 meters ahead, it doesn't look like it is going to move but I watch it anyway. Just as I am passing it there is a hell of a bang and I go sailing through the air. What didn't I see?

Now which do you consider safer: Watching for hazards and riding to the conditions, or mindlessly obeying the speed limit?

Had you throttled back for a second or three while still scanning the road ahead and then checked your speedo, we could assume, just as in scenario 1, that you would have detected the hazard ahead.

It is evident too that if the rider had been travelling at say, 105-110 km/h and they maintained that pace as in scenario 1, they would probably have picked up both of the hazards too.

Mindless indeed to religiously maintain the legal speed if it means that you need to focus unduly on the bike's instruments as opposed to the road around you. A case in point that illustrates the same point you make was when I used to travel on local highways on my old 250. It was a dual sport Kwaka that severely struggled to maintain 100, let alone when minor hills or headwinds were added to the bargain.

Trying to obey the speed limit is quite different to allowing it to consume a disproportionate amount of your focus which needs to be on the road.

I hope you're 2-3 second speedo checks aren't on the V-strom? Sounds cumbersome. The 650 V-Strom was actually my bike of choice when I bought the Z750.

[Jantar]

I hope you're 2-3 second speedo checks aren't on the V-strom? .

Yes it is. When looking down at the instruments I can only see about 50 meters of road ahead, and with the rather small number size on the analogue speedo it takes time to focus and read it properly.

I have ridden bikes that are worse.