Traffic lights and the attitude of the Police

[NinjaNanna]

I was travelling between Taupo and Turangi in the cage at about 130km/h and came up behind another car travelling at about 120km/h. We then both came up behind a caravan travelling at about 90km/h. The car in front of me passed the caravan on a blind corner. I bided my time and waited for a long straight, passed safely and proceeded at about 130km/h as before. Five minutes later I came up behind the same car doing about 120km/h. The moral of this story is that, because I was travelling a bit faster when the road was clear I had less incentive to pass slower vehicles dangerously. Now you tell me who the safer driver was?

Or perhaps it could be said that if you had been doing 100km/hr you would not have caught up to either of them????? Safer still

Come on, you sound more intelligent than the posing of this particular question suggests.

This is NOT meant to be an insult.

[Toaster]

All I was trying to point out was that just because one driver is travelling faster than the other that doesn't mean they're at greater risk of an accident.

Um, yes you are. It's simple and logical (to me anyway) that the faster the speed you travel at, then the longer it takes to slow down and stop - therefore the higher the risk you will be unable to avoid the object you wish to avoid.

Also factored in can be things like road surfaces, bumps etc biffing off riders because they were going so fast it chucks them off - something that is more avoidable at slower speeds.

Mate, all I want you to think about is how precious life is. I have seen so many people throw away their lives or physical abilities because they thought speeding didn't hurt anyone... it hurt them forever.

[Max Preload]

So let me get this straight, we are upset about people entering intersections on Orange and very early Red lights whilst the opposing traffic is still stationary.

No. Quite a few times now I've had a car pass across AFTER I've been given a green light.

[Max Preload]

Um, yes you are. It's simple and logical (to me anyway) that the faster the speed you travel at, then the longer it takes to slow down and stop - therefore the higher the risk you will be unable to avoid the object you wish to avoid.

The velocity difference at impact is what counts. Velocity being a vector includes a direction - on the motorway you're safer doing 140km/h with other traffic at 100km/h than you are driving with opposing traffic when you're both driving at 30km/h.

Also factored in can be things like road surfaces, bumps etc biffing off riders because they were going so fast it chucks them off - something that is more avoidable at slower speeds.

Again it comes down to the conditions. If you're right on the limit of adhesion in the wet on a blind corner unable to stop within half the distance of clear road ahead that's totally different to driving at 61km/h on a straight road in the dry with a 50km/h posted limit.

Mate, all I want you to think about is how precious life is. I have seen so many people throw away their lives or physical abilities because they thought speeding didn't hurt anyone... it hurt them forever.

And yet statistically it's a highly unlikely occurrance. I sure as hell don't want to wrap myself in cotton wool and never leave the house for fear of what might happen.

[Toaster]

This really is pointless.... you lot are going to talk yourselves blue in the face trying to justify it with stupid arguments like that. It is never going to be legal for you to act like dickheads so get over it.

Have you ever crashed at 130km/h? I bet you wish you were going 100km/h - it could make all the difference for life and death.

61 km/h over the limit - that is just the rules all of us have to stick to - and by the way - the limit is 50, not 61. So if you get a ticket at 61 - stiff shit really - you were over the limit by 11 km/h. I would never argue the toss - if you did it, you take the ticket and don't complain as you only have yourself to blame!

Stats are bollocks.... tell that to the people who have been hurt from crashes where if they had slowed down they might have avoided all the pain and heartache and cost that comes with the aftermath of a crash small or large.

[Max Preload]

Have you ever crashed at 130km/h? I bet you wish you were going 100km/h - it could make all the difference for life and death.

Just as depending on the actual circumstances and conditions, dictated by the prudence of the driver, it could make no difference whatsoever. And even travelling at 100km/h might be too fast to be prudent given the particulars of the conditions.

The more that responsibility for ascertaining what is safe is removed from the drivers only to be substituted with something as purely arbitrary as a ridiculously low (in many cases) speed restriction to try and compensate, the worse drivers are going to get. Dumbing them down is not going to help anyone, much less motorcyclists.

[rwh]

Legal definition thank you - remember it is the law we are debating, not your personal dictionary or opinion of what you think a crash is or isn't. Deliberate doesn't even come into it fella so slow your horse down before you bolt like that and spout dribble. You are miles off the mark there.

The term was used in a casual conversation, in English, not a legal document.

And if the people screwing with the language are lawyers, so what? I still disapprove.

And I'm not arguing about what a crash is or isn't; I'm arguing about an accident.

But anyway - can you quote the legal definition (of accident) for me?

Thanks,

Richard

[The Pastor]

SO SWBARNETT? YOU MUST BE THE FOUNDER OF WWW.SNAPT.CO.NZ WHAT A COCKWANK YOU ARE OH NOES SOMONE RAN A RED LIGHT IN AUCKLAND WHAT EVERWILL HAPPEN!

THIS IS MY VIEW ON CITY RIDING - DON'T DO IT.

IF YOU MUST RIDE IN THE CITY RIDE AS IF YOU ARE GOING TO GET HIT ON EVERY ROAD AT ANY TIME. EVEN ON GREEN ARROWS I STOP. THERES JUST NO REASON WHY NOT TO (UNLESS THE CAR BEHIND YOU WONT STOP)

[rwh]

Two words: bol locks.

Care to elaborate? Or is your argument the same as Toaster's; that we've branched out from English in this thread into legalese?

Richard

[scumdog]

Question: Are swbarnett, rwh and awful-truth really the same person??

The above posts would lend one to think that.

[swbarnett]

Question: Are swbarnett, rwh and awful-truth really the same person??

The above posts would lend one to think that.

No.

(Evidently that answer is too short...)

[rwh]

Question: Are swbarnett, rwh and awful-truth really the same person??

The above posts would lend one to think that.

No. Well, not me anyway.

I guess a useless post like that (and the one referred to) is easier than a rational discussion.

Richard

[Max Preload]

Question: Are swbarnett, rwh and awful-truth really the same person??

The above posts would lend one to think that.

Are Patrick, Mekk, Toaster, Spudchucka and Scumdog the same person? Probably not, but they foolishly and blindly tow the same company line.

[Max Preload]

Oh no... posts at the same time... now he'll be going all night with the conspiracy theories!

[scumdog]

Are Patrick, Mekk, Toaster, Spudchucka and Scumdog the same person? Probably not, but they foolishly and blindly tow the same company line.

Ah, and YOU guys pay us to do so..Mwahahahahaaahahah!


BTW What about all the other cops and ex cops on KB - do they not 'tow the party line' too????