Busted? Help!

[spudchucka]

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

As far as I know you can appeal a roadside suspension but at the pace the courts move it would probably be way longer than 28 days before you even get a chance to get into court.

Over 200? Same roadside suspension but expect also to get arrested and charged with dangerous speed, which will result in a minimum 6 months disqualification if found guilty.

[spudchucka]

They can basically choose from a huge range of penalties but careless is typically 3 months plus big $$$ and dangerous is 6 months plus very big $$$.

Careless driving is a fine only charge, there is no mandatory disqualification. You can still get disqualified but it is at the discretion of the court, whereas a dangerous conviction it is mandatory.

[spudchucka]

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

No they don't but if everyone sticks to them it has the net effect of reducing the harm caused when those human variables enter the equation.

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

Do you remember when it was 80? I can't answer that with any authority but it seems obvious to me that it simply comes down to the limits that vehicles & roads are manufactured to, the fact that so many different types of vehicles share the roads and that the roads have to be safe for all users regardless of age or ability.

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?

That's a big part of it.
Bikes don't feature in it at all.
Those sections of road are reduced usually because of an environmental issue or because of significant historical crash data that suggests a lower speed limit might be appropriate.

Perhaps this is where increased education comes in?

Yes, but it will take more of a national attitude adjustment to make any significant difference to road safety.

There seems to be this notion that you can drive perfectly safely without thinking.

Its because most of us are just totally lackadaisical in our attitudes towards driving. It has everything to do with attitudes and nothing whatsoever to do with subliminal messages.

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

I'll take your word for it.

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

You are simply highlighting the inherent stupidity of the average motorist. If they are so thick that they can't see the risks associated with road use or they are so slack that they don't care then they need to be permanently removed from the roads.

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

Not maybe, its a fact. I have to say that I think it is just your perception as I have never heard any other person express this, in particular none of the persons that I have dealt with who have been involved in road crashes, (which would number in the thousands).

[boomer]

hi folks

first a thanks to all that have replied and a massive thanks to those who have gone above and beyond the call. you know who you are.

we have recieved heaps of help and good advice.

Morcs mate.........sorry to hear.

we passed ( overtake on straight ) a mufti car, he turned his radar on as we pulled back in and his reading of our speed was 142 km/h.

we have decided it is worth fighting this. there is the matter of weather his radar is correct ? has been calibrated correctly and in the specified timeframe ?
if his car has / had a current warrant / rego ?
I have learnt that the police officer must have done his job correctly, and his equipment must be up to scratch. this all comes into play before we even look at weather it is ok to book both of us with an alleged reading that has only come from one bike.

I dont have massive hopes to be dashed, but I have heard some good news and interesting facts. enough for me to think it is worth a bit of a fight as the officers actions seem unreasonable to me.

once again thanks all

mate, you're trying to weasel out of something by pointing the finger at someone else.

Grow some balls and man up instead of being a slimey no good for nothing, wasting our tax's.


pay the bill and move on.

[swbarnett]

No they don't but if everyone sticks to them it has the net effect of reducing the harm caused when those human variables enter the equation.

And if everybody was of the same religion there'd be a lot fewer wars too.

Do you remember when it was 80?

Yes, I do.

I can't answer that with any authority but it seems obvious to me that it simply comes down to the limits that vehicles & roads are manufactured to,

In which case the speed limit should be raised as the average vehicle fleet becomes safer in higher speed crashes.

the fact that so many different types of vehicles share the roads and that the roads have to be safe for all users regardless of age or ability.

I think this is the crux of where we differ. I don't believe that this level of safety is achievable and I certainly don't think it's desirable. If I did I wouldn't ride bikes. Absolute safety just has too high a price.

Bikes don't feature in it at all.

Herein lies a big part of the problem. We're not accepted as legitimate road users when it comes to the policy makers.

Those sections of road are reduced usually because of an environmental issue or because of significant historical crash data that suggests a lower speed limit might be appropriate.

Are you saying that on some roads a 200kph impact is acceptable but on others only a 160kph impact is acceptable? I agree that, based on visibility and other road factors the appropriate speed will be lower on some roads but this is about crash avoidance, not crash survival.

Yes, but it will take more of a national attitude adjustment to make any significant difference to road safety.

If the population at large becomes concerned about road safety they'll start treating driving with the respect it deserves. The attitude of drivers is the main problem (and consequently why safe drivers that happen to be over the speed limit become scapegoats).

You are simply highlighting the inherent stupidity of the average motorist. If they are so thick that they can't see the risks associated with road use or they are so slack that they don't care then they need to be permanently removed from the roads.

This would remove most of today's drivers from the road. I can attest that this would not necessarily be a bad thing (in 1997 there was 1 car for every 1350 people in Zurich* and the driving as far as I saw was exemplary).

*The public transport is among the best in the world.

If we're to lower the stupidity level of the average motorist we have to make them think. Not just on the road but in all areas of life from the cradle to the grave.

Not maybe, its a fact.

I'll take your word for this in the absence of evidence to the contrary (It was based mainly on statements made on KB).

[scumdog]

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

But in good 'ol New Zealand people sail right through Give Way signs, Stop sign and even traffic lights without slowing down, crash into some poor clod minding his own business and say "Oh, I never noticed the (name one of the above)"

And as for uncontrolled intersections???!! don't even start.

[scumdog]

In which case the speed limit should be raised as the average vehicle fleet becomes safer in higher speed crashes.

Sooooo, in a nutshell you're saying: as the fleet gets safer and less people get killed we should raise the speed limit to keep the road toll where it is at present?????

[CookMySock]

mate, you're trying to weasel out of something by pointing the finger at someone else.

Sure he is. Its the traditional kiwi male thing to do. I think he's completely screwed in this case, but no harm in trying

Grow some balls and man up instead of being a slimey no good for nothing, wasting out tax's. pay the bill and move on.

Calling people names is weak. It's also the last step in the circle of violence before the decision to hit.

DB

[boomer]

Sure he is. Its the traditional kiwi male thing to do. I think he's completely screwed in this case, but no harm in trying

Calling people names is weak. It's also the last step in the circle of violence before the decision to hit.

DB

thanks DB.. where shall i send the money to? :spudwave:

and here's another observation or comment.. Isn't calling yourself dangerbastard and owning a hyosung an oxymoron? Silly bastard seems more apt

lollies.

[CookMySock]

and here's another observation or comment.. Isn't calling yourself dangerbastard and owning a hyosung an oxymoron? Silly bastard seems more apt lollies.

cmon maaaan it was cheap, and I'm having fun on it.. ride one and you will see they are not so woosey. DangerousBastard is just a stupid nickname - I'm too old, tired, and burned to be truly dangerous.

DB

[Jantar]

......Do you remember when it was 80? .....

Yes, and I also remember before it was 50 mph (80 kmh), when it was 55 mph (88 kmh). The speed limit was dropped without warning to 80 kmh during the first week of december 1973. I was on tour at the time, and not having a radio on the bike, nor getting a paper delivered to my tent, I found out the hard way when a nice traffic officer gave me a warning for doing 55 mph when the speed limit was 50 mph.

However, some interesting statistics came out of New Zealand's playing with speed limits.

In the ten years leading up to the drop in the New Zealand speed limit, an average of 608 New Zealanders had died on the roads each year.

In the ten years that followed the drop from 100 kph down to 80 kph, an average of 707 New Zealanders died on the roads each year: in other words, the new, lower New Zealand speed limit coincided with a 17% increase in road deaths. Starting to get the picture?

Then, in 1985, the New Zealand Government decided to raise the speed limit again, from 80kph back up to 100kph. The average number of New Zealanders killed on the roads each year was 699, a slight drop when compared with the ten years under a lower speed limit.

Also we must bear in mind the increasing number of vehicles on the roads each year over those 30 years, and the opening up of roads to general goods carriage (ie trucks) when everything prior to the mid 80s had to go by rail.

The point that comes out of it is that higher speeds do lead to an increased chance of death in the event of an accident, but with less restrictive speed limits there are fewer accidents in the first place. I won't even try to comment on the reason for this, other than to say that is some major research going on in the USA right now because they found the same thing.

Those states that raised their speed limits found a drop in the number of road fatalities compared to the states that didn't raise their speed limits.

[FJRider]

Statistics can prove ANYTHING the compiler want to prove, if they include (or EXCLUDE) the (ir)relevant information. ACC do this with "motorcycle" accident numbers.

[FJRider]

thanks DB.. where shall i send the money to? :spudwave:

and here's another observation or comment.. Isn't calling yourself dangerbastard and owning a hyosung an oxymoron? Silly bastard seems more apt

lollies.

Name calling a bit y'self, the likelyhood is HIS insurance,fuel costs,and speeding ticket/court costs are a lot less than yours. Be careful who you call a SILLY BASTARD.

[FJRider]

But in good 'ol New Zealand people sail right through Give Way signs, Stop sign and even traffic lights without slowing down, crash into some poor clod minding his own business and say "Oh, I never noticed the (name one of the above)"

And as for uncontrolled intersections???!! don't even start.

The same goes for motorcycle verses car "accidents", Fiirst words out of the cage drivers mouth...I NEVER SAW HIM OFFICER. Maybe eye-sight tests should be tougher to pass ???

[FJRider]

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


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

Speeding, or not riding to the conditions, has a lot to do with suggested lack of skill levels. JUST AS MUCH AS BAD DECISION MAKING IS.

Complicated laws/rules are difficult to remember and HARDER to enforce. The K.I.S.S. theory, keep it simple stupid.

The laws are set for the "benefit" of the "lowest common denominator" road user. And if you have difficulty understanding (obeying) the "simple" rules, this could be YOU !!!