Harry Duynhoven

[jrandom]

I don't imagine his attitude would be atypical of repeat offenders: just a matter of weighing up the risks and deciding it's no big deal.

That's one problem that will never be completely solved. There will always be a segment of society that tends toward that sort of behaviour; one's mission, should one choose to accept it, can only be to minimise the size of that segment via the propagation of moral convictions () or the raising of the general socioeconomic level ( ).

We're f*cked, aren't we?

[Fryin Finn]

Have you noticed that most of the crosses on the sides of the road are on long straight bits - I suggest this is a result of people going too slow.
And putting crosses by the side of the road - It'l get ya killed

[That Guy]

I lived in Austria for two years and spent a lot of time driving around legally at 180kph on the motorways there. I got completely used to it and because its fast enough for people to concentrate on what they are doing; road tolls are low. However, that was on roads built to handle it. One place like them is on the motorway just north of the bombay hills. A few times visiting NZ I would come back, get onto that part of the motorway and drive along at 180 before I realised that you can't do that in NZ. Whoops! Didn't get caught but if I did I accept I have no excuse for that. However the point I am trying to make is that NZ does not have enough of a speed limit range like other countires. 120 or 130 would be safe there (in fact if kiwis were used to probably no speed limit would be safe but that would be too much of a shock to our brain numb dirving habits I suspect). However - there are also places were 100 is too fast - and even worse heaps of built up areas were 50 is too fast. Anyone ever driven into Devonport down hill around that blind left hander at 50kph? You have to really jam on the brakes if someone is crossing that pedistrian crossing - 50 is too fast.

My only other point is that all NZ's anti-accident campaigns focus on SPEED, not DANGEROUS DRIVING. And the two are completely seperate. Speed never killed anybody, ever. Dangerous dirving is what kills people. Sometimes 100kph in a 100kph zone is dangerous driving.....and Transit et al aren't interested in that message. Don't know why. :spudwhat:

[marty]

I Speed never killed anybody, ever. Dangerous dirving is what kills people. Sometimes 100kph in a 100kph zone is dangerous driving.....and Transit et al aren't interested in that message. Don't know why. :spudwhat:

WTF????

[Posh Tourer :P]

If you are truely motivated by a desire to initiate change then why don't YOU run for public office?

Perhaps because some of us have no desire to surround ourselves with *more* idiots? :P

TBH, Public office isnt for everyone, I know I couldnt handle it....

[Posh Tourer :P]

I think Police have to be really careful not to tar everyone with the "You're a criminal until proven not" feather.

Tarring with a feather? Isnt that a little labourious?

[Posh Tourer :P]

the NZ public compliance relies on fear, not on sensibility, to comply with laws set down. if there were no speed limits/give way/stop/driver licensing rules, it would be each for their own, with a road toll like china, and people would be complaining that the police arent doing enough.

Ok fair enough, but better driving skills in a more comprehensive licencing programme that taught people what to do when things turned to shit, and/or how to recognise when it might do so, would also be an advantage

[Posh Tourer :P]

WTF????

"The fuck" as you so elegantly put it, is that simply exceeding the speed limit (speeding) cannot be seen as a cause of crashes. I hope you will agree, that on some roads in some conditions it is safe to exceed the speed limit by quite a bit.

The reason people die, is that they are driving in a manner that is not appropriate to the conditions - be that by speeding, driving within the speed limit in a dangerous car, by doing stupid things eg stunts and tricks in the wrong place or any other act of "dangerous" driving - note this is not the legal sense of "dangerous driving".

While the speed limit VERY ROUGHLY estimates what is an appropriate maximum speed in good conditions, doing the speed limit is often untenable. I'm allowed to travel at 100kmh on most of Scenic Drive. I could easily be driving dangerously while not speeding.

I can be safe while speeding, and unsafe while not speeding.

Sure, speed does increase the kinetic energy, and the potential to do damage, and increases the risk of you dying if you do crash, but "speeding" does not directly cause you to die. There are far more layers of complexity in this, which is what most of the public see.

Spud/Lou: This is why people are moaning at the police - a single, simplistic and sometimes draconian view of things. There is no education, there is yelling at us and telling us we are all bad, with few clarifications as to why.

Marty, I'm sure you know all this, so I wont go on.

But you did ask....

[bikerboy]

"The fuck" as you so elegantly put it, is that simply exceeding the speed limit (speeding) cannot be seen as a cause of crashes. I hope you will agree, that on some roads in some conditions it is safe to exceed the speed limit by quite a bit...........But you did ask....

Well said Posh......however you are using an intelligent, logical approach, something some members neither understand nor consider in their dogmatic approach to this topic.

[DEATH_INC.]

I think the driving standard in this country is too poor to have the speed limit lifted at this stage.Here in jafaland,and up north too,seemingly most people are incapable of driving safely at 100kph.......and a lot travel at 80kph or even less on the open road/righthand- passing lane on the motorway causing much havoc,no-one signals turns,everyone runs red lights,talks on cellphones,no-one looks before they pull out into traffic,those that do on motorway onramps then stop till they splutter out into the traffic at 50kph,no-one keeps left,ect,ect.
The problem I believe stems from our Dumbass joke 'scratch and win' licence tests and just as stupid driven tests which seem to take no skill to pass.
But as usual it's catch22,make it too hard and they'll just drive without one....

[Skyryder]

I tend to think that most of us drive at what we see as a safe speed. For example haow many of us drive at 50k's when it is pefectly safe to drive a little faster safely. For my part I would sooner see the the 50k limit raised to 60k's with 63k's ticketed or perhaps even less
The only problem I have with the speed limit raised over the 100k's is the traffic build up behind a slow car. But that aside I do think that there is a case for the speed limit to be raised on some sections of highway.

I'll toss one of my favourite hobby horses into the pot and see what the response is.

I am also of the opinion that when passing a vehicle that requires traveling on the wrong side of the road then speed restrictions should not apply.


Skyryder

[speedpro]

I tend to think that most of us drive at what we see as a safe speed. For example haow many of us drive at 50k's when it is pefectly safe to drive a little faster safely. For my part I would sooner see the the 50k limit raised to 60k's with 63k's ticketed or perhaps even less
The only problem I have with the speed limit raised over the 100k's is the traffic build up behind a slow car. But that aside I do think that there is a case for the speed limit to be raised on some sections of highway.

I'll toss one of my favourite hobby horses into the pot and see what the response is.

I am also of the opinion that when passing a vehicle that requires traveling on the wrong side of the road then speed restrictions should not apply.


Skyryder

In Seattle (back in '82) if you had more than 3 vehicles following you, you had to pull in to these passing bays. They weren't passing lanes but an actual bay off the side of the rode and the cops were hot on it too. Traffic got along real well.

I like that last idea, though I can just imagine Christmas down highway 27, 2 miles of nose-to-tail traffic, me passing the lot at 270kmh, legally. You would actually be praying for traffic. Imagine how fast you could get from Auckland to Wellington during holidays.

[Mr Skid]

I am also of the opinion that when passing a vehicle that requires traveling on the wrong side of the road then speed restrictions should not apply.

Maybe a 'gentlemans agreement' would be useful in this context - certainly if there is a queue of traffic behind a 90 km/h vehicle, it would be more efficent for them to pass it at 125km/h than 109km/h in a passing lane.

You'd get more vehicles past the slower vehicle, in the same length of passing lane, and I would assume that passing lanes are located in 'safe' stretchs of road?

[dhunt]

Maybe a 'gentlemans agreement' would be useful in this context - certainly if there is a queue of traffic behind a 90 km/h vehicle, it would be more efficent for them to pass it at 125km/h than 109km/h in a passing lane.

You'd get more vehicles past the slower vehicle, in the same length of passing lane, and I would assume that passing lanes are located in 'safe' stretchs of road?

I don't think it is efficiency that is the issue. In my oppinion the longer I am on the other side of the road the more dangerous it is, so the quicker I get back to my side the better. So if I have to "speed" to get past so be it.

[Stevo]

Of course, I'd also like to see people re-sit their license every 10 years. Which will never happen.

Hardly a practical idea and certainly very costly. Maybe you should run for government as you would cost us all MORE money AND create jobs!!

What other great ideas do you have???