Busted? Help!

[Jantar]

Statistics can prove ANYTHING the compiler want to prove, if they include (or EXCLUDE) the (ir)relevant information. ....

This is a common error. Statistics cannot prove or disprove anything, they can only indicate trends and corelations, and hence give an idea of possible cause and effect. It is when statistics are misused to "prove" a point that we get hard and fast rules that don't work for the purpose intended.

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 ???

Not tougher, just more practical. reading letters on an eye chart doesn't show how observant someone is to their surroundings.

... And if you have difficulty understanding (obeying) the "simple" rules, this could be YOU !!!

Understanding, and obeying, are two totally different things. I understand that the speed limits are set and imposed because they are the "greatest enforceable risk" (MoT statement), not the greatest causitive risk. So why should a rule that is set for revenue gathering, rather than road safety, be any easier to obey because we understand it better?

[candor]

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.
.

Overseas research is suggesting less fatigue related crashes among those prone eg sleep apnoea sufferers where limits are higher due to more adrenalin focussing attention at higher speeds.
Source - Akilla NZ drowsy driving campaign

[FJRider]

This is a common error. Statistics cannot prove or disprove anything, they can only indicate trends and corelations, and hence give an idea of possible cause and effect. It is when statistics are misused to "prove" a point that we get hard and fast rules that don't work for the purpose intended.



Not tougher, just more practical. reading letters on an eye chart doesn't show how observant someone is to their surroundings.



Understanding, and obeying, are two totally different things. I understand that the speed limits are set and imposed because they are the "greatest enforceable risk" (MoT statement), not the greatest causitive risk. So why should a rule that is set for revenue gathering, rather than road safety, be any easier to obey because we understand it better?

The words "indicate" and "possible" are the key words, but CANNOT "prove" a point, and should not be used to attempt this. Sadly it is. BY STATISTICS NEW ZEALAND. About every four years the census forms get sent out...Remember the silly questions ...and the silly answers given ???
THESE ARE THE BASIS OF POLICY AND LAW.

Whats on the eye chart matters little, if your texting the missus or slapping the kids (or dog because you're not allowed to smack kids now) in the back seat or away in a dreamworld, in a galaxy far far away.

If you understand the rules AND PENALTYS for breaking them, there should'nt be such a fuss when WE GET CAUGHT !!! Maybe its a sign of a wealthy society when we can "afford" the fines. Maybe the fines were'nt intended as revinue gathering, but the frequency of speeding turns it into a "tidy little earner"

[spudchucka]

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


Yes, I do.


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


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.


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


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.


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).


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.


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

Mate all this multi quote posting is getting too much for me, I can't be bothered going over every little point. If you want to keep this going how about just one point at a time?

[spudchucka]

Sure he is. Its the traditional kiwi male thing to do.

Never accepting responsibility for your actions?

[duckonin]

You need a lesson hope you get busted hard, 100 k's +9 if you are lucky is the limit, 142 and you want every one to feel sorry for your arse, you paid your money and played the game and lost tough shit..

[jrandom]

However, I do seem to recall that the speed of the vehicle emitting the signal has no impact whatsoever upon the doppler shift.

Doppler shift is relative to the observer.

You hear cars doppler-shifting as they drive past when you stand on the side of the road, but they make a constant-tone noise when you ride alongside them.

Same goes for EM radiation. If you change your velocity, the apparent frequency of any radiation emitted or reflected from another object will change.

Red-shifting stars seen in a telescope, f'rinstance - who's to say whether they're racing away from us, we're racing away from them, or it's a combination of both?

So when a cop car takes a measurement of another vehicle's speed via doppler-shift radar, the immediate result will be the velocity of the other vehicle relative to the patrol car.

I don't know how that's addressed in typical systems; I'd just plug the radar unit into a calibrated speedo signal, easiest way and accurate enough, but maybe it works differently. Any cops care to comment?

It doesn't matter whether the emitter is moving or stationary - the EM radiation travels at c...

... but the apparent frequency of its oscillation shifts up or down, is the key point. And that apparent frequency shift is entirely dependant on the relative speed of the observer and the emitter of the radiation.

this is one of the things about the theory of relativity that is hard to grasp...

You're a good cunt, but you can be a mite condescending sometimes. Particularly when you're getting something wrong.

[spudchucka]

I don't know how that's addressed in typical systems; I'd just plug the radar unit into a calibrated speedo signal, easiest way and accurate enough, but maybe it works differently. Any cops care to comment?

The antenna takes a reading off the road surface to obtain the patrols ground speed, which in turn is used by the receiver to calculate the target speed. Both patrol speed and target speed are displayed on your radar readout.

[FJRider]

Never accepting responsibility for your actions?

15,000 solo mothers CAN'T be wrong.

[Mikkel]

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 ???

Eye-sight is of no use if people don't bother using their eyes in the first place.

You're a good cunt, but you can be a mite condescending sometimes. Particularly when you're getting something wrong.

True, but I actually started out my post by saying I wasn't an authority on the matter... So I was right - it is pretty hard to grasp.
In most ways the theory of relativity is a major mindfuck.

But yes, I was indeed wrong on that count. It's the relative speed you measured, the velocity of the emitter does factor into the equation.

[swbarnett]

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?????

This assumes that there is a link between speed and the road toll. If this were true I see your point.

However, given that there is a link between speed and road toll (something which I do not accept). You're saying that 5 years ago we were happy for x number of deaths per year and now we're not? (otherwise the speed limit would've been lower then)

[swbarnett]

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.

Agreed.

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

Agreed. But there is a point where things are too simple. The human brain has a perfectly natural tendency to shut off when this is the case. We need to make people think in all areas of life, not jsut driving.

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 !!!

I have no problem understanding the rules. This does not, however, mean that I agree with them. I have a problem when it is becomes clear that the law does not achieve it's stated goal and imposes restrictions on people for no good reason.

[Roadrash]

Police radar can pick up 2 vehicles at 1 time, the front vehicle and the vehicle traveling at the fastest speed.

If you were in front but your mate traveling behind you at a slightly faster speed it will show both speeds on the radar.

They don't have to lock your speed, just sight it, so, yes he can take both your licence's, and no i wouldn't expect much sympathy from a Judge.

[spudchucka]

Police radar can pick up 2 vehicles at 1 time, the front vehicle and the vehicle traveling at the fastest speed..

The largest reflective object that provides the strongest signal, which isn't necessarily going to be the front vehicle.

[CookMySock]

[...] If you were in front but your mate traveling behind you at a slightly faster speed it will show both speeds on the radar.. [...] so, yes he can take both your licence's

The cops have a hell of a job stopping two vehicles at the same time. If they wave over TWO bikes just make sure you are the last one, then ride right past the stopping rider.

"Geez sorry ocifer, I thought you wuz aksin that OTHER fella to stop. Genuine mistake! My bad."

I don't think the cops take much of this too personally.. if they did, they would have a mental breakdown in less than 5 years. Hell, its just their JOB its not like its their religion or anything.

DB