More restrictions and speed limits coming up. Announcement 13 December

[bell]

It's not a matter of the detector making you safer, rather, drivers that use them are safer.
If you want to preach about obeying speed limits, you are definitely in the wrong forum. Perhaps the 'Safe as" one would be more welcoming.

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.

Now, there will be members of this forum that maintain that they do not own a radar detector for the purpose of evading detection by police when they are speeding but what other reason would anyone bother owning one for? Aside from the Driver Warning System that is/was in use in Western Australia: http://www.adrawa.com.au/issues.htm what other legitimate use is there for one of these devices?

Your comment re preaching made me smile Lou. Your avatar speaks volumes.

Further, why do you assume that because I have a radar detector I choose to exceed the speed limit? In fact I have found that since having a radar detector fitted I am more often riding within the speed limit.

The detector makes a rider more aware of his speed because he gets more reminders to glance down at the speedo.

You need a device to remind you to check your speed? I imagine most of us use that thing between our ears.

[Ixion]

Of course one uses a radar detector to evade detection by police when speeding. That's the whole point of them. That's why I've just bought one, it jolly well had better help me avoid detection (not that I shall be so silly as to rely on it of course).

Mr Plod is the greatest danger we face on the roads, and ECM is a useful weapon in our armoury of survival.

And anyone who rides a 4 cylinder 750 and claims never to have need to evade detection by the police is either fibbing, posing, or lacking in fiscal apptitude.

[Jantar]

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..

Are really as thick as you are pretending to be, or do you normally twist information and put in meanings that were never there. Read Lou's comment again. He didn't claim 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. His comment is that they are already a safer driver without the detector. This is shown by the fact that they are neither over or under represented in accident statistics despite the higher than average distance travelled.

Now, there will be members of this forum that maintain that they do not own a radar detector for the purpose of evading detection by police when they are speeding but what other reason would anyone bother owning one for? Aside from the Driver Warning System that is/was in use in Western Australia: http://www.adrawa.com.au/issues.htm what other legitimate use is there for one of these devices?.

Again you are mis-interpreting, I don't believe anyone has made such a claim, nor is anyone likely to. But what I would claim, and I believe many others would as well, is that a radar detector is a backup to the old Mk1 eyeball.

You need a device to remind you to check your speed? I imagine most of us use that thing between our ears.

No, I did say that. I said "The detector makes a rider more aware of his speed because he gets more reminders to glance down at the speedo"
Nowhere did I claim I need a device to remind to me to check my speed.

If you are this bad at comprehending simple statements in a forum such as this one, then I can see why you would scared of any technology that allows a rider to concentrate on his riding.

[SuperDave]

I'm looking more and more forward to when Hampton Downs will be completed.
The road is seeming less and less appealing.

[bell]

Mr Plod is the greatest danger we face on the roads, and ECM is a useful weapon in our armoury of survival.

And anyone who rides a 4 cylinder 750 and claims never to have need to evade detection by the police is either fibbing, posing, or lacking in fiscal apptitude.

2 things:

We choose our speed based on all manner of factors, road conditions and personal abilities being two of them. One factor that is not high on my list is whether there's a cop with radar around the next corner. Buy some track time and perhaps you'll save yourself the stress of worrying if your ECM's are up to the task.

Posing? Fibbing? They're my points of view ixion. Let's play nicely. I'm too tired to bother working out what you mean exactly by 'lacking in fiscal aptitude'. Sounds clever though.

[bell]

Are really as thick as you are pretending to be, or do you normally twist information and put in meanings that were never there. Read Lou's comment again. He didn't claim 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. His comment is that they are already a safer driver without the detector. This is shown by the fact that they are neither over or under represented in accident statistics despite the higher than average distance travelled.

Again you are mis-interpreting, I don't believe anyone has made such a claim, nor is anyone likely to. But what I would claim, and I believe many others would as well, is that a radar detector is a backup to the old Mk1 eyeball.

No, I did say that. I said "The detector makes a rider more aware of his speed because he gets more reminders to glance down at the speedo"
Nowhere did I claim I need a device to remind to me to check my speed.

If you are this bad at comprehending simple statements in a forum such as this one, then I can see why you would scared of any technology that allows a rider to concentrate on his riding.

Ohhh, please leave the personal criticisms out of it ffs. Scared of technology? You make me laugh. Generalisations such as that do little for your credibility. I, as would a great number of others out there, do not need a piece of plastic and microchips to allow me to concentrate on my riding/driving. Hmmm, what would we all revert back to if we didn't have radar detectors?

Point taken re more reminders to check speed....again, an unnecessary device if you're in the habit of checking your speed regularly. 'Regularly' being variable based on when/where you're riding, etc.

I've re-read Lou's post and yes, I can see a different angle to it now. It's a tenuous link between accident rates:miles travelled = safer rider/driver however. There are many more factors involved would you agree?

[xwhatsit]

... It's a tenuous link between accident rates:miles travelled = safer rider/driver however. There are many more factors involved would you agree?

Man, you're not the best at reading comprehension, are you, lol? What he said, was people with radar detectors have same amount of accidents -- but travel more. So their accident rate is lower. It's simple math. If I have one crash in a year, and have travelled 500kms, and you have had one crash too, yet travelled 5000kms, then you have a lower accident rate. I don't think you can dispute that a lower accident rate (over a significant sample size) does not represent a safer driver than somebody with a higher accident rate.

[bell]

Man, you're not the best at reading comprehension, are you, lol? What he said, was people with radar detectors have same amount of accidents -- but travel more. So their accident rate is lower. It's simple math. If I have one crash in a year, and have travelled 500kms, and you have had one crash too, yet travelled 5000kms, then you have a lower accident rate. I don't think you can dispute that a lower accident rate (over a significant sample size) does not represent a safer driver than somebody with a higher accident rate.

Yes, I understand the math behind it sufficiently well thanks. As to my reading comprehension, it's fine too thanks. (I must admit though it can be very hard deciphering the shite that a significant number of kbers 'post'. I'm unsure if I am reading English or some other variation of what passes for language these days.)

I don't think we're naive enough to believe that what makes us a 'safe' rider is whether we have x accidents/y miles travelled. There is a significant number of other things that we do on the road that determine whether we are safe riders or not. Attitude to other road users and perception of abilities being two that come to mind.

On the simplest level, yes, an accident free rider is safer than one that has had an accident. We're off topic and it's late and I'm going to bed...

[Jantar]

.... what would we all revert back to if we didn't have radar detectors?...

An interesting question. I don't see that it would change anyones riding/driving style.

So lets reverse it and go right back to your original statement.

Will someone kindly enlighten me as to how the continued policy of allowing radar detectors aligns with the aims of the government's current road safety 'initiatives'?

Will you please explain how banning radar detectors will improve traffic safety?

[bell]

Will you please explain how banning radar detectors will improve traffic safety?

There are more than a few threads on here that bemoan the government's enforcement regime.

If we start with the basic premise that speed is a factor in a significant proprtion of road traffice accidents (yes, along with a host of other factors) and then look at current and proposed initiatives to increase enforcement of speed related offences, it appears to be totally incongruous that the government allows people to use a device that gives them an opportunity to evade said enforcement.

The word "loophole" springs to mind. "Hypocrisy" too.

Take away radar detectors and the government will quite possibly catch and fine more of the individuals that they are trying to target with their enforcement regime. Who knows, this might even bring about a modification of driving behaviour that is hopefully at the heart of the government's aim to reduce the road toll.

I'm not so cynical that I believe the government gives police the task of enforcing our speed limits purely for revenue-raising. It's often called that.

I believe there are huge numbers of drivers/riders on or roads who simply do not know what the limits of their abilities are. These limits are more often than not going to be tested when they're faced with a scenario that requires them to take evasive action or emergency braking for example.

Eg. 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.

If I've got this completely wrong then tell me why - rider chooses to speed (let's say they regularly like to blat about at 140+ km/h), rider makes decision to use a radar detector to help them avoid being fined for speeding, rider can no longer use detector as they are made illegal, rider realises after they get fined several times that their riding behaviour is costing them $$$, rider might choose to alter their behaviour and ride closer to the posted limits....

Multiply that scenario by 30 000 drivers/riders (arbitrary figure - I have no idea what % of NZ drivers use radar detectors) and due to the fact that a large number of these accidents that are caused by excessive speed could be minimised (prevented in some cases), we have roads that are safer to a degree.

Of course, mandatory defensive driver training for all road users might achieve similar reductions in the road toll or hospital admissionss due to accidents. (Or any one of a number of other excellent ideas that were discussed in the recent workshops on road safety initiatives.)

[Ixion]

I am so cynical. And I have never heard any convincing argument that establishes a nexus between accidents and safe but illegal speed.

(also, your position might be stronger if your avatar did not show a motorcylist engaged in an illegal, and very dangerous, overtaking manoeuvre).

[bell]

I am so cynical. And I have never heard any convincing argument that establishes a nexus between accidents and safe but illegal speed.

(also, your position might be stronger if your avatar did not show a motorcylist engaged in an illegal, and very dangerous, overtaking manoeuvre).

Yeah, what is safe but illegal is quite open to interpretation.

BTW my avatar is actually a "road safety" poster from about the 1950's! It's too small to be readable but the text is "Journey's End". http://www.aerostich.com/catalog/US/...er-p-16794.htm

[Ixion]

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.

[Jantar]

Thanks for your explanation bell, now I can get a better idea of where you are coming from so lets look at this argument in detail.

If we start with the basic premise that speed is a factor in a significant proprtion of road traffice accidents ...

This basic premise is the start of the debate. The data produced by the MoT show that speed is a signifacant factor in a very small proportion of accidents. Most accidents occur at speeds lower than the posted speed limit and only around 11% of accidents are at speeds above the speed limit. That still doesn't mean speed was a cause of the accident, just a factor. Speed is a greater contributor to the seriousness of the accident, and I don't think anyone would dispute that. However, the police have included speed that is "inapropriate for the conditions" as being a factor in a greater percentage of accidents, even where that speed was below the speed limit.

(yes, along with a host of other factors) and then look at current and proposed initiatives to increase enforcement of speed related offences, it appears to be totally incongruous that the government allows people to use a device that gives them an opportunity to evade said enforcement....

You said it yourself, to evade said enforcement, not to avoid accidents.

The word "loophole" springs to mind. "Hypocrisy" too.

Take away radar detectors and the government will quite possibly catch and fine more of the individuals that they are trying to target with their enforcement regime.

Here you are agreeing that banning radar detectors will increase revenue to the government.

Who knows, this might even bring about a modification of driving behaviour that is hopefully at the heart of the government's aim to reduce the road toll.

I notice you use the word "might". Is there any eveidence from anywhere in the world that banning detectors does bring about such modification? From the evidence I have seen there is no appreciable difference in speeding offence rates or accident rates between thos US states that allow detectors and those that don't. The raw empirical evidence is that those staes with higher speed limits and allow detectors actually have fewer speed related accidents than those with lower speed limits and that ban detectors.

I'm not so cynical that I believe the government gives police the task of enforcing our speed limits purely for revenue-raising. It's often called that.

I would agree that speed enforcement is not purely for revenue-raising, but it is primarily for this purpose. When the goverment and speed enforcement agencies have been shown data that indicates what the real cause of accidents (ie fatigue among others) has been they keep coming back to the basic argument that policing for fatigue is not enforceable and not punishable by fines.

I believe there are huge numbers of drivers/riders on or roads who simply do not know what the limits of their abilities are. These limits are more often than not going to be tested when they're faced with a scenario that requires them to take evasive action or emergency braking for example.

Eg. 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.

There can be circumstances where this may be correct, but this is only correct if the speed limit is such that is exactly the appropriate speed for the conditions. The MoT data shows that this example occurs in very few cases.

If I've got this completely wrong then tell me why - rider chooses to speed (let's say they regularly like to blat about at 140+ km/h), rider makes decision to use a radar detector to help them avoid being fined for speeding, rider can no longer use detector as they are made illegal, rider realises after they get fined several times that their riding behaviour is costing them $$$, rider might choose to alter their behaviour and ride closer to the posted limits....

Multiply that scenario by 30 000 drivers/riders (arbitrary figure - I have no idea what % of NZ drivers use radar detectors) and due to the fact that a large number of these accidents that are caused by excessive speed could be minimised (prevented in some cases), we have roads that are safer to a degree.

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.

Of course, mandatory defensive driver training for all road users might achieve similar reductions in the road toll or hospital admissionss due to accidents. (Or any one of a number of other excellent ideas that were discussed in the recent workshops on road safety initiatives.)

Now here is something I'm more inclined to agree with. Not just defensive driving but better total driving and riding training.

[Jantar]

message too long?