Busted? Help!

[swbarnett]

All quite true but what about the guy coming the other way that isn't driving to the conditions, would you appreciate the presence of a police officer on the road keeping speeds down then?

No. I'd appreciate the presence of a police officer on the road keeping the road safe within reason. Just because someone is above the limit does not make them automatically dangerous. And just because they're below the speed limit doesn't make them automatically safe.

Speed limits are there simply to reduce the risk, human bodies can only withstand so much force.

Lower speed of impact is relevant only if a crash occurs in the first place. Using your logic we should all riding under 8kph as that is the impact threshold for braking bones.

However it would all be irrelevant if drivers would just stay on their own side of the road and obey the give way rules etc

But they don't so I drive with an appropriate margin of error to take account of that fact. I don't always have to be below the speed limit to achieve this.

Whether or not you engage your brain when you drive is an individual responsibility issue. If you are the type that drives along in a trance, blaming this or that then you should have your licence shredded.

Agreed, on both points. However, in practice there is a perfectly natural human tendency to not think if you don't have to. We are programmed by evolution to conserve energy wherever possible. If our subconscious mind is led to believe that thinking will not be required we get out of the habit. People need to be prodded in to thinking so that the skill is retained. Keeping the road rules simple is all well and good but when it gets to the point that an inebriated toad could drive people stop doing what little thinking they were and the problem just gets worse. And when they do think it's only to the point of "I'm under the speed limit so I must be safe".

[spudchucka]

No. I'd appreciate the presence of a police officer on the road keeping the road safe within reason. Just because someone is above the limit does not make them automatically dangerous. And just because they're below the speed limit doesn't make them automatically safe.

All true. But tell me, how do you account for the human variables when judging what is a safe travelling speed for one person or another in any given driving environment?

Lower speed of impact is relevant only if a crash occurs in the first place. Using your logic we should all riding under 8kph as that is the impact threshold for braking bones.

You take my logic completely out of context. I've never advocated caution to the point of stagnation. 100kph is a reasonable maximum speed when you take into consideration the strength of today's vehicle fleet and the frailty of the human body. Your chances of surviving a crash improve if you travel within the maximum speed limits. If we could guarantee a perfect world where nobody ever crashes then you could merrily travel at what ever speed you wanted, but that ain't ever going to happen.

But they don't so I drive with an appropriate margin of error to take account of that fact. I don't always have to be below the speed limit to achieve this.

Something that many never seem to be able to grasp the concept of.

Agreed, on both points. However, in practice there is a perfectly natural human tendency to not think if you don't have to. We are programmed by evolution to conserve energy wherever possible. If our subconscious mind is led to believe that thinking will not be required we get out of the habit. People need to be prodded in to thinking so that the skill is retained. Keeping the road rules simple is all well and good but when it gets to the point that an inebriated toad could drive people stop doing what little thinking they were and the problem just gets worse. And when they do think it's only to the point of "I'm under the speed limit so I must be safe".

Perhaps we should have computers in our cars that project Mensa crosswords or Suduko puzzles onto a heads up display in order to keep our minds active while we drive?

All it takes is for a driver to take responsibility for the fact that driving on a public road is a matter to be taken quite seriously as there are quite significant risks associated with it and make sure that they are switched on whenever they drive.

And in all my years of attending car crashes I have never once come across a person who having been involved in a crash said that they thought they would be safe because they were driving below the speed limit. That notion is simply absurd.

[onearmedbandit]

If we could guarantee a perfect world where nobody ever crashes then you could merrily travel at what ever speed you wanted, but that ain't ever going to happen.

If we take the main problem out of the equation, ie remove the human driver and replace it with an automated system, then we could have that scenario. As much as I love driving and riding, I know it's a fucking risky game that is quite idiotic. I mean, here with have imperfect humans, with lots of distractions, controlling a 1500kg missile on open roads at 100km/h heading towards another one of these missiles with only a 2m gap and a white line separating them. It's simply a recipe for disaster. It's been said that if motorbikes were invented today they would not see the day of light, I believe the same applies for any human operated vehicle in public places.

[spudchucka]

If we take the main problem out of the equation, ie remove the human driver and replace it with an automated system, then we could have that scenario.

It may happen one day but it will be a sad day because it will be so f&%ken boring.

[FJRider]

Just because someone is above the limit does not make them automatically dangerous.

True, but thats NOT not the wording in law.

And just because they're below the speed limit doesn't make them automatically safe.

But most think, if they're BELOW the limit, they CAN / ARE ALLOWED to go faster.

Lower speed of impact is relevant only if a crash occurs in the first place. Using your logic we should all riding under 8kph as that is the impact threshold for braking bones.

Speed of STOPPING is relevant, 100 km's to zero when you hit a power pole makes your eye's water...a bit

But they don't so I drive with an appropriate margin of error to take account of that fact. I don't always have to be below the speed limit to achieve this.

You MAY do, but those that DON'T, can't explain what "margin of error" means.


However, in practice there is a perfectly natural human tendency to not think if you don't have to.

SOME JUST DON'T THINK

We are programmed by evolution to conserve energy wherever possible. If our subconscious mind is led to believe that thinking will not be required we get out of the habit. People need to be prodded in to thinking so that the skill is retained. Keeping the road rules simple is all well and good but when it gets to the point that an inebriated toad could drive people stop doing what little thinking they were and the problem just gets worse. And when they do think it's only to the point of "I'm under the speed limit so I must be safe".

Most believe, THEIR skill levels are BEYOND reproach. From the day they get their licence. AND consider it an INSULT, if you suggest otherwise

TO STAY SAFE... THINKING IS REQUIRED.

[Soul.Trader]

Well, yes, this is the idea. Then, if you get it wrong and cause an accident you get the book thrown at you.

Or, more colloquially known as "putting the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff".

[candor]

Haven't read full thread due to length so I might be repeating stuff alrerady covered.

I don't believe they can establish you were over 140 if reading was 142 as I don't think the tool is more accurate than to 5ks. Good lawyer could argue that the equipment doesn't allow certainty you were over the licence loss limit

[spudchucka]

Haven't read full thread due to length so I might be repeating stuff alrerady covered.

I don't believe they can establish you were over 140 if reading was 142 as I don't think the tool is more accurate than to 5ks. Good lawyer could argue that the equipment doesn't allow certainty you were over the licence loss limit

If you were able to convince a judge of that it wouldn't make any difference to the outcome because the roadside suspension is effective immediately, not the result of a court hearing.

Nor would it make any difference to the subsequent charges since it won't be a speed dangerous charge, it will only be a exceeds 100kph charge.

[scumdog]

Haven't read full thread due to length so I might be repeating stuff alrerady covered.

I don't believe they can establish you were over 140 if reading was 142 as I don't think the tool is more accurate than to 5ks. Good lawyer could argue that the equipment doesn't allow certainty you were over the licence loss limit

You are.

It has been covered a quadzillion times on KB.

If it WAS as simple as you suggest there would be bugger all speeding tickets getting issued as the cop would know the judge would dismiss then.

[Grahameeboy]

You are.

It has been covered a quadzillion times on KB.

If it WAS as simple as you suggest there would be bugger all speeding tickets getting issued as the cop would know the judge would dismiss then.

Scummy...you are talking too much sense this morning...stop it

[candor]

Thought so = it probably here I learnt it - but I didn't know that defending it would not undo the suspension, this must be the only guilty till proven innocent thing? Is it a longer suspension for going over 200

[MaxB]

Thought so = it probably here I learnt it - but I didn't know that defending it would not undo the suspension, this must be the only guilty till proven innocent thing? Is it a longer suspension for going over 200

It depends what you are charged with. Unlike tickets, there can be a big differences in penalties imposed in court hearings. You will always get the 28 day walk.

If the offence is exceeding 100km/h (say doing 200km/h) you can look forward to a 28 day walk, guaranteed 50 points, a court appearance (or plea by letter) and a $1000+ fine/costs. This is for a single offence. And you would be lucky.

If however you are charged with a careless or dangerous driving charge then things start to get worse. They can basically choose from a huge range of penalties but careless is typically 3 months plus big $$$ and dangerous is 6 months plus very big $$$. If you have done it before it will be worse this time. If you hurt someone they can jail you. But often don't.

I know people that have been charged with dangerous driving at 145 ks and speeding at around 200 ks. The aggravating factors were the 145 was near Taupo on a holiday weekend and overtaking traffic. The 'almost 200' was a weekday in the South Island on a lonely straight and the rider stopped in a controlled fashion when ordered to and he fessed up. Maybe they took pity 'cos he had to pay to get the bike and himself back to Auckland?

[swbarnett]

All true. But tell me, how do you account for the human variables when judging what is a safe travelling speed for one person or another in any given driving environment?

Difficult, I agree. Speed limits certainly don't do this.

You take my logic completely out of context. I've never advocated caution to the point of stagnation.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you had. I just don't understand why 100kph is such a magic number.

100kph is a reasonable maximum speed when you take into consideration the strength of today's vehicle fleet

Do you mean strength or their ability to protect the occupants in a crash? How do bikes figure in this?
Also if a 200kph impact speed (head-on at 100kph) is acceptable why are some stretches of road being reduced to 80kph?

Something that many never seem to be able to grasp the concept of.

Perhaps this is where increased education comes in?

Perhaps we should have computers in our cars that project Mensa crosswords or Suduko puzzles onto a heads up display in order to keep our minds active while we drive?

Apart from how distracting this would be this is not what I meant at all. What I'm talking about is a cause and effect relationship. There seems to be this notion that you can drive perfectly safely without thinking. This is because, most of the time, this is true. It's only on the rare occasion that not thinking leads to an accident. What I'm advocating is that driving is made sufficiently complex (but not too complex) that you have to think to drive. This way the mind is on all the time. The circumstances that will possibly lead to an accident will most of the time not happen in the first place and when they do the driver will be better equipped to deal with them.

This has been demonstrated in some European towns when they removed all traffic lights and road signs.

All it takes is for a driver to take responsibility for the fact that driving on a public road is a matter to be taken quite seriously as there are quite significant risks associated with it and make sure that they are switched on whenever they drive.

But if the driver is lulled into a false sense of security this is likely to be thought unnecessary.

And in all my years of attending car crashes I have never once come across a person who having been involved in a crash said that they thought they would be safe because they were driving below the speed limit. That notion is simply absurd.

Maybe. Yet that's what the anti-speed signs are trying to tell us.

[swbarnett]

Most believe, THEIR skill levels are BEYOND reproach. From the day they get their licence. AND consider it an INSULT, if you suggest otherwise

A ticket for just being over the posted limit will not change this. One for not riding to the conditions just might.

TO STAY SAFE... THINKING IS REQUIRED.

Agreed. So why do we try to tell them otherwise by over simplifying things on the road?

[swbarnett]

Or, more colloquially known as "putting the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff".

If it's good enough for a murder victim, why not a road accident victim?