More restrictions and speed limits coming up. Announcement 13 December

[Ixion]

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

The same rational and logical processes are used to determine appropriate speed at any speed. Logic does not take a U turn at some arbitrary speed limit, nor does rationality. The only effect the speed limit has is to bring into play another hazard factor to be included in the calculation, that of the possible presence of Mr Plod (which, indeed, may be no minor factor, but it is simply part of the same universal process).
EDIT: Coming back to the original question, having a radar detector helps ameliorate the risk of possible Plod-Presence, thus reducing (though not eliminating) one hazard factor. They may therefore be considered a safety device.

[Jantar]

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..

True, but how would the rider know he was doing 105 - 110 without checking his speedo? And are you now saying that 105 - 110 is safe? It is over the speed limit you know?

[mstriumph]

..........................
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. .............................

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..................

for the most part the limits placed on roads around here have so little connection with common sense, or relevance to the actual roads concerned and traffic patterns/conditions on them that their ONLY rational seems to be to allow opportunity for revenue-raising by the government's lackeys. some of the local plod have tantamount to admitted this.

i will ride at the speed i consider safe for the conditions...........
so i cop the occasional fine .....
so be it

it's got to be preferable to living as a forelock-tugging serf

rules are there for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.

[bell]

True, but how would the rider know he was doing 105 - 110 without checking his speedo? And are you now saying that 105 - 110 is safe? It is over the speed limit you know?

Sure, rider still had to do the speedo check but only once - 'ok, I'm down to 114....roll off another second and it'll be approx 108....' that kind of process.

We're allowed a bit of tolerance for speedo error are we not?!

No, seriously, I think this discussion has reinforced for me that there are a couple of broad schools of thought on safe speeds: those that try to respect a law that they may not agree with in all aspects and those that have little respect for some aspects of traffic law. Personal choice.

105-110 km/h safe? Situational. Legal is a separate issue still.

[bell]

for the most part the limits placed on roads around here have so little connection with common sense, or relevance to the actual roads concerned and traffic patterns/conditions on them that their ONLY rational seems to be to allow opportunity for revenue-raising by the government's lackeys. some of the local plod have tantamount to admitted this.

That wouldn't be the esteemed Assistant Commissioner (Traffic & Operations) WA Police John McRoberts you're referring to?

I re-read the editorial type column that he wrote in twowheels magazine (July 06). Titled "Attitude: the silent killer", it raises some valid points. Some that appear to be in conflict with the stats you quoted earlier Jantar. Interesting to draw comparisons between other countries and NZ.

I haven't found a link to it. I'll type it up tomorrow arvo.

[kevie]

Hmmm.....tell you what, why don't they just make driving illegal?

Or, ooh, ooh, I know this might sound silly but (and apologies if I make any sort of sense here) how about 1) increasing learner driver training and making it harder for idiots to get licences, 2) raise the age at which you can learn to drive and get a full licence and, 3) improve the state of NZ roads.

Just the thoughts of a crazy lady....

OMG wash your mouth out ....... to improve roads would mean using the roading tax money on roading instead of putting it into the Aunty Helen slush fund to use to bribe voters on election year ........ and they need a high accident rate and toll to justify the revenue gathering they do LMAO

Ive told a few cops to come for a ride with us linehaul truckers and they will see the reason for the toll in NZ (no its not us )...... NZ drivers in general are impatient, intollerant and I dont think they can see more than 1.5 seconds in front of them!!!!!!

[Dai]

for the most part the limits placed on roads around here have so little connection with common sense, or relevance to the actual roads concerned and traffic patterns/conditions on them that their ONLY rational seems to be to allow opportunity for revenue-raising by the government's lackeys. some of the local plod have tantamount to admitted this.

i will ride at the speed i consider safe for the conditions...........
so i cop the occasional fine .....
so be it

it's got to be preferable to living as a forelock-tugging serf

rules are there for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.

I do not know how the 100kph speed limit came about here. I was on my great OE at the time.

What I do know is that a lot of our laws originated in the UK, we played copy cat for a very long time.

In the early 60's there never used to be a speed limit on the UK's first motorway, the M1. There was a spate of fatal accidents and the government was under pressure to do something about them.

They came up with the 70 mph speed limit.

Why?

Because a serving MP at the time, a woman by the name of Barbara Castle (I think), who happened to be the transport minister, stated that she wouldnt like to travel at anything faster than 70mph. Guess what the speed limit was set at.

When I left NZ in the mid 70's for my OE, that was what the speed limit was in this country. I started riding in the early 70's and for all that time top speed was 70mph (112 kph).

Be it that NZ copied a lot of UK laws I personally feel that that is why they set a 70mph limit over here also.

When I left the UK in 2002 I remeber there was a growing push by motorists and organisations such as ther AA and RAC, to have the speed limit raised to 80mph (130 kph approx). This is what the speed limit is in most of the European countries. The argument was that given the huge increase in transport manufacture and safety standards and the much better built roads that 70mph was more of a danger than a restriction.

From my own experience over in the UK I found that most people travelled at a speed suited to the road. 80-85 mph seems to be the standard. I had a couple of friends over there in the traffic dept of their police force and they wouldnt even pull anyoner over if the were 85 mph or less. 24 mph over the speeed limit ie 94 mph (150kph approx) was a definite loss of licence.

On the other hand the UK has a very high number of fixed spered cameras (usualy hidden). Try driving down the A1 into London, one every mile or less.

Anyway my thoughts and input to this discusion over.

[mstriumph]

.................They came up with the 70 mph speed limit.

Why?

Because a serving MP at the time, a woman by the name of Barbara Castle (I think), who happened to be the transport minister, stated that she wouldnt like to travel at anything faster than 70mph. Guess what the speed limit was set at..............................

lol

bit like the reason that only male-on-male sexual acts were made illegal in Britain ................ apparrantly the draft law that was presented to Queen Victoria for approval after passing both houses of parliament outlawed both male AND female gay sex ..... she expressed disbelief that women could have have sex with each other and NOBODY was game to explain it to her .......

[Lou Girardin]

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.

Not forgetting, of course, our aging population and the deterioration in focussing capabilities that entails.
Anyway, that's my excuse yer honor.

[Lou Girardin]

One of my rationales for not issuing tickets for less than 20 over, was that even the most inept driver knows when he is that much over the limit. 11 km/h, on the other hand, is not enough to remove the inadvertent element of the offence.

[bell]

From twowheels magazine July 06. "John McRoberts is the Assistant Commissioner, Traffic & Operations for the Western Australia Police. He also rides a Hayabusa. He's not one of them, he's one of us. So pay attention."

Attitude: the silent killer

"It was 2am when the patrol car parked in the driveway of a suburban family home. Inside the occupants were fast asleep, totally unaware of the shock they would soon experience. As they crossed the well manicured lawn, the police officers knew there would be tears and disbelief as they explained what had happened and asked who would formally identify the body now temporarily entombed in the city mortuary.

That scenario occurs almost daily somewhere in Australia and all too often involves a motorcycle. Based on the myriad material in magazines, newspapers and, more recently, the internet, one could be fooled into believing some within the motorcycling fraternity view police as the enemy. Let me assure you nothing could be further from the truth. After some 27 years in my profession, I've seen more death and destruction than I care to remember and our efforts focus purely on reducing road trauma and the consequences.

Police are not the sole custodians of the road safety agenda. Each and every one of us has a part to play if we are to achieve a 40 percent reduction in the number of fatalities per 100,000 population by 2010 (The National Road Safety Strategy 2001-2010, Australian Transport Council, Canberra). There is no doubt that is a hard task, but an achievable one if we all commit to it. On the bright side, we've come a long way when you consider the rate is now 8 per 100,000 compared to 30 per 100,000 in 1997.

For some time now, much emphasis has been placed on fatigue, speed, drink driving and seatbelt use as the causal factors of most serious injury and fatal road crashes. There is good reason for that because we know, more often than not, one or more of those factors led to the death or serious injury of someone's friend, relative or loved one. But I believe attitude is the silent killer in many crashes and I have the evidence to prove it.

In Western Australia last year 83 motorcyclists were killed or seriously injured compared with 66 in 2004, representing a 25.8 percent increase. That is an alarming statistic: 22 motorcyclists (including 2 pillion passengers) are no longer with us and the cost to the community is great. Regrettably, I suspect this trend will continue unless some motorcyclists change their attitude.

No doubt riders and motorcycle lobby groups will be quick to point the finger at car drivers. Excuse the pun, but that's a cop out and here's why...Of 20 fatal crashes in WA last year, nine involved single motorcycles with speed identified as the primary cause. Of the remainder, seven were attributed to the car driver. There is no doubt riding fast is a buzz, but it needs to be balanced with road and environmental factors, vehicle condition and, most importantly, the skill and attitude of the rider. For the most part we ride mechanically sound bikes on good roads in ideal weather conditions, which suggests the rider is to blame in many crashes. Simply put - attitude played a part and some riders died as a result.

Still in doubt? Just over 12 months ago a man went to his brothers funeral followed by the traditional wake and, no doubt, a few drinks to say farewell. Later the same night he convinced a companion to join him for a 'quick blast'. With the passenger wearing only a bicycle helmet, both left the family gathering and were never seen again. The bike left the roadway at high speed, hit a tree stump and the rest is history. Two lives lost and one can only imagine the grief for those left behind. Sure, speed and alcohol played their part, but what does it say about attitude?

Worse still is the case of a rider stopped by police doing 101km/h in a 60 km/h zone. The exchange with police over, the 20-year-old took off. Tragically, four minutes and a few kilometres later, he ignored a red traffic light, collided with a 4WD and was killed instantly. The harsh but stark reality is that this man's death need not have occurred but for attitude. Crash investigators concluded that speed and rider error were to blame and that's exactly why police enforce speed limits - to reduce road trauma by changing driver behaviour and attitude.

Speed detection devices are not the most popular road safety equipment west of the Nullarbor and I suspect a similar attitude prevails on the other side of the continent. However, they are a necessary tool in our quest to lower the road toll. Why? Because speed, or should I say attitude, kills.

Fortunately, not all riders who speed will crash. No doubt many have the skill to gracefully manoeuvre their machines down the highway without incident providing all goes well. But what happens when things go wrong? We recently detected a motorcycle travelling at 243 km/h on a metropolitan arterial road (90 km/h zone). Luckily, no one was hurt, but the stopping distance at that speed is more than 300 metres. There is no doubt that a collision at or near that velocity would almost certainly result in death for the rider, but there are potentially fatal consequences for other road users and to ignore that fact demonstrates a serious lack of judgement and a poor attitude.

Riding brings enormous pleasure to thousands of Australians every week, including me. In my humble opinion it's hard to find a better way to forget the office woes, take in the wonderful sights Australia has to offer and enjoy the 'esprit de corps' with fellow bikers. That is a right we all have and one we should enjoy whenever possible, providing of course we do so responsibly. For those who do, there is much fun to be had. For those who don't, there is a possibility it will be your driveway the patrol car is parked in as a police officer prepares to deliver the worst news possible.

So, my friends, next time you saddle up and twist the wrist, take a moment to think of Winston Churchill who said, "Attitude is a little thing that makes a big difference". It might just keep you alive!"

[Ixion]

I don't think that advances your cause any. The fact that idiots contrive to kill themselves at high speed, doesn't mean that high (or any particular) speed automatically kills you. It just proves that stupidity kills you. Which we all agree on. And more people die under 100kph than over it. Frequently, because of stupidity.

Like the erstwhile Mr Cliff (Mr Scumdog, it was Mr Cliff with the scrambled egg, not Wright), who was quoted to day , condemning the 5 deaths in the weekend (fair enough), then going on to say that 99.9% of the time it's caused by speed, alcohol or not wearing a seat belt. Then followed the report of one of the deaths, a woman who die when she slid off the roof of a van where she was road surfing.The man's an idiot. (So was she, but he was the one on record )

[bell]

Posted out of interest to the discussion here ixion. I bothered posting my initial post in this thread to get some other NZers opinion on a topic of interest. I consider that I've been enlightened by some of the responses to my post. Good on you and Jantar for taking the time to share.

[Jantar]

In Western Australia last year 83 motorcyclists were killed or seriously injured compared with 66 in 2004, representing a 25.8 percent increase. That is an alarming statistic: 22 motorcyclists (including 2 pillion passengers) are no longer with us and the cost to the community is great. Regrettably, I suspect this trend will continue unless some motorcyclists change their attitude.

If you are going to quote this type of comparisom statistic, then please put it in context. A 25.8 persent increase in motorcyle serious accidents, but what was the associated increase in motorcycle use? One increase without the other is meaningless.

Worse still is the case of a rider stopped by police doing 101km/h in a 60 km/h zone. The exchange with police over, the 20-year-old took off. Tragically, four minutes and a few kilometres later, he ignored a red traffic light, collided with a 4WD and was killed instantly. he harsh but stark reality is that this man's death need not have occurred but for attitude. Crash investigators concluded that speed and rider error were to blame and that's exactly why police enforce speed limits - to reduce road trauma by changing driver behaviour and attitude.

So he ignored a red light, yet Crash investigators concluded that speed and rider error were to blame? I would say that running a red light was to blame. That was not error, that had to be deliberate.

Fortunately, not all riders who speed will crash. No doubt many have the skill to gracefully manoeuvre their machines down the highway without incident providing all goes well. But what happens when things go wrong? We recently detected a motorcycle travelling at 243 km/h on a metropolitan arterial road (90 km/h zone).

There is a point where speed is not appropriate, and although that point is often difficult to determine I would suggest that in this example it has been exceeded.

I do note that you are quoting John McRoberts, but you are doing so to put forward your own point of view. Nowhere has John McRoberts looked at the rider who is travelling well within his limits on an open road. All examples are either extreme examples or ones where the primary cause is something other than speed.

[avgas]

SPEED KILLS!
along with cancer, radiation, cellphones, diet, lack of diet, underexercise, overexercise, lead, toothpase, arsnic, explosives, bullets, knives, dirt, driving, flying, diplomacy, trains, sound, air, age, bee's, spiders, bears, war, heartbrake, negligence, poor eyesight, technology....... you get the idea