Speeding, ouch..................

[inlinefour]

I have upset several people who are adament that their views are correct and that I am wrong, including Marty. Yes the law is the law, but in some instances people like to try to manipulate the definitions of the law to justify their own actions, like here. Yes I sympathise with your problems with work, but if the law (which can be pathetic when handing out sentences for more serious crimes) does not provide penalties as a result of breaking the laws, what sort of shite country would we be living in???

[inlinefour]

I have upset several people who are adament that their views are correct and that I am wrong, including Marty. Yes the law is the law, but in some instances people like to try to manipulate the definitions of the law to justify their own actions, like here. Yes I sympathise with your problems with work, but if the law (which can be pathetic when handing out sentences for more serious crimes) does not provide penalties as a result of breaking the laws, what sort of shite country would we be living in???

It is a pretty shite country when it comes to this issue. I must be getting tired, time to go and wake someone else up

[rodgerd]

it actually makes for intersting reading. how about we try emulating some of their habits?

• Speed management is an important part of highway safety programs in Germany. Speed limits have been instituted on some parts of the autobahn system. For example, the Rheinland-Pfalz highway authority has attained a 25 percent reduction in crashes on selected autobahn sections totaling about 90 miles by posting 80 miles-per-hour (130 kilometers-per-hour) speed limits and implementing no-passing restrictions on trucks.
• Traffic calming measures and speed cameras (photo radar) are also used in speed management. An example is use of gateways at interfaces from rural to urban areas. Use of this type of device was addressed by a previous scan study. In some German states, all speed enforcement is now accomplished with speed cameras.

So you want to lower speed limits and use more speed cameras?

[MikeL]

One mans harmless indulgence is another mans death and destruction.

It works both ways Mike and society has detremined that we should all travel no faster than 100kph on the open road and nor should we overtake on double yellow lines. Those who think it unfair should by all means campaign against it but don't whinge about it because you all know the consequences.

I doubt that comparing speeding to burglary, paedophilia and drug-dealing is a valid argument. Equating the latter crimes with "harmless indulgence" seems a bit strange: it can I imagine fairly easily be proven that these people's actions have caused serious harm, and if the perpetrators can't or won't see that then that is the result of their twisted thinking. Trying to convince me that doing 111kph on the open road is "wrong" in the same sense as the examples you have quoted is absurd. I can see both qualitative and quantitative differences: qualitative in the absence of criminal intent or at the very least reckless disregard for consequences; quantitative in the degree of actual harm done to any individual or to society as a whole.

I don't dispute the necessity for road rules, including speed limits. I think that the penalties for breaking them, particularly the demerit points, are excessive considering the "harm" done.
To say that a person who accumulates 5 lots of 20 points for doing 11 kph over the limit in each case deserves to lose his licence for sheer stupidity or wilful disobedience undercuts the whole basis of a justice system. In the first place it should be up to a judge to determine penalties, taking into account individual circumstances, and secondly the punishment should be for the actual harm or potential harm done, not for being stupid or forgetful or even rebellious.
An automatic, inflexible "3-strikes you're out" type of system is bound to lead to unfairness...

"Society has determined that stealing a sheep is unacceptable. The law is the law. You knew the law, and therefore the consequences of your action. You will hang. Stop whingeing..."

I should point out that I am happy to be labelled a woolly-minded liberal with totally unrealistic ideals. You need to have a few of us in society.

[rodgerd]

I doubt that comparing speeding to burglary, paedophilia and drug-dealing is a valid argument. Equating the latter crimes with "harmless indulgence" seems a bit strange:

Why? The leading cause for death for men 18-3-something is car crashes.

[vifferman]

Why? The leading cause for death for men 18-3-something is car crashes.

That doesn't mean that every time someone speeds they will crash and die. It also doesn't mean that the solution to a high road toll is to hand out as many speeding tickets as possible. That is a band-aid solution to an over-simplified perception of what the problem is; i.e., the biggest causes of road deaths/injuries are drink-driving and speed, so let's hammer those. In reality, the reason for the high road toll lies in attitudes.

The real answer lies in improving the attitudes and skills of drivers in general, but this is perceived as too difficult. Furthermore, unlike hammering speeding, it requires a consistent and effective long-term plan, with no return on investment, so it aint gonna happen.

[Biff]

yeah i do em all the time, not that i go out to do it but i love riding fast and hate tickets, so its the only option, the day they get cars that will catch my bike will be the day i stop riding

Aaron - you're not the guy I saw getting chased down Moorhouse about 2-3 weeks ago are you? I also think I know where you work (not trying to spin you out and I'm not a cop!!). I won't write it here though - cos big brother might be watching. Testing, testing 1-2.

[rodgerd]

That doesn't mean that every time someone speeds they will crash and die. It also doesn't mean that the solution to a high road toll is to hand out as many speeding tickets as possible. That is a band-aid solution to an over-simplified perception of what the problem is; i.e., the biggest causes of road deaths/injuries are drink-driving and speed, so let's hammer those. In reality, the reason for the high road toll lies in attitudes.

The real answer lies in improving the attitudes and skills of drivers in general, but this is perceived as too difficult. Furthermore, unlike hammering speeding, it requires a consistent and effective long-term plan, with no return on investment, so it aint gonna happen.

Well, let's see. Since the 80s, we've overhauled the licensing system, attacked drunk driving, seatbelt wearing. There have been campaigns on sharing the road with cyclists, motorcycle awareness. Seems like a pretty broad-based approach to me.

[vifferman]

Well, let's see. Since the 80s, we've overhauled the licensing system,

Overhauled?!?
So it's not true that there are people being licensed to drive who are barely capable of keeping the car in a straight line? And who can't parallel park?
C'mon, man! That's like saying you overhauled your bike because you'd washed the road spooj off it!

attacked drunk driving, seatbelt wearing.

Agreed, there have been improvements there.

There have been campaigns on sharing the road with cyclists, motorcycle awareness. Seems like a pretty broad-based approach to me.

And fairly ineffective, if you ask me.
Broad-based? The funding's obviously inadequate and the approach all wrong, for the negligible impact it's had. I'd imagine most of the funding for these latter campaigns you've mentioned has done little apart from fill the coffers of a few advertising agencies.
Look - the attitude of the average NZ driver (as exhibited by things like speeding up at passing lanes, getting aggro when people try to pass, driving through stop signs and red lights, and generally driving like a prat) is such that a broad-based whitewash arrived at by using bad statistical analysis and poor hypotheses is just not going to work.
Like I said, it's putting a band-aid on a deep and malignant cancer. :spudwhat:

[inlinefour]

I doubt that comparing speeding to burglary, paedophilia and drug-dealing is a valid argument. Equating the latter crimes with "harmless indulgence" seems a bit strange: it can I imagine fairly easily be proven that these people's actions have caused serious harm, and if the perpetrators can't or won't see that then that is the result of their twisted thinking. Trying to convince me that doing 111kph on the open road is "wrong" in the same sense as the examples you have quoted is absurd. I can see both qualitative and quantitative differences: qualitative in the absence of criminal intent or at the very least reckless disregard for consequences; quantitative in the degree of actual harm done to any individual or to society as a whole.

I don't dispute the necessity for road rules, including speed limits. I think that the penalties for breaking them, particularly the demerit points, are excessive considering the "harm" done.
To say that a person who accumulates 5 lots of 20 points for doing 11 kph over the limit in each case deserves to lose his licence for sheer stupidity or wilful disobedience undercuts the whole basis of a justice system. In the first place it should be up to a judge to determine penalties, taking into account individual circumstances, and secondly the punishment should be for the actual harm or potential harm done, not for being stupid or forgetful or even rebellious.
An automatic, inflexible "3-strikes you're out" type of system is bound to lead to unfairness...

"Society has determined that stealing a sheep is unacceptable. The law is the law. You knew the law, and therefore the consequences of your action. You will hang. Stop whingeing..."

I should point out that I am happy to be labelled a woolly-minded liberal with totally unrealistic ideals. You need to have a few of us in society.

Try working in an emergency dept for a week and look at the mess that comes in on a regular basis these days from bikers that have crapped off for whatever reason and look at the bigger mess when speeding is a factor

[scumdog]

Try working in an emergency dept for a week and look at the mess that comes in on a regular basis these days from bikers that have crapped off for whatever reason and look at the bigger mess when speeding is a factor

Honda, a bit of the time I wonder what planet you are from but on this occasion you are SO right, it is a fine line between "oops" and "fuck, get the undertaker"
After 20+ years in the freezing works I think the results of a bad (is there a 'good'?) crash is just like the gut-floor at the works, only there is no crying/wailing rellies. , try it sometime.

[scumdog]

I don't have a problem with the fine or the points, yes I screwed up and I accept the penalties, I just think that placing MY entire livelihood in jeopardy because of a mere(and this is how I view it) speeding offence is heavy handed, do you think that someone should have their entire life go down the toilet because of a speeding offence?

I notice that although you quoted me, you didn't address any of the points I raised.............................oh and I wasn't cranking up to that speed to pass the truck, I was just enjoying myself! Sorry, I forgot we are not allowed to do that in this day and age!! And yes I am being sarcastic, to save you the bother of replying along the lines of risking other road users lives which I accept is a valid point and not one that I disagree with.

Yor whole life went down the toilet? Try dead, then your life REALLY goes down the toilet.
Enjoy yourself, I've no problem with that, just pay for it when it breaks the law ok? - and stop moaning when you have to pay and piss off to a place where you can ride like you want to if you don't want to pay for your law breaking.
The points you raised were???

[spudchucka]

I doubt that comparing speeding to burglary, paedophilia and drug-dealing is a valid argument. Equating the latter crimes with "harmless indulgence" seems a bit strange: it can I imagine fairly easily be proven that these people's actions have caused serious harm, and if the perpetrators can't or won't see that then that is the result of their twisted thinking. Trying to convince me that doing 111kph on the open road is "wrong" in the same sense as the examples you have quoted is absurd. I can see both qualitative and quantitative differences: qualitative in the absence of criminal intent or at the very least reckless disregard for consequences; quantitative in the degree of actual harm done to any individual or to society as a whole.

Go ask a six year old who's mum has just been killed by someone speeding for their quantitative opinion on how much harm that person caused. Or for that matter the mother of the young dude who wipe himself out on a power pole this morning. Its all relative to your personal experiences. Yours are obviously very different to mine.

[spudchucka]

To say that a person who accumulates 5 lots of 20 points for doing 11 kph over the limit in each case deserves to lose his licence for sheer stupidity or wilful disobedience undercuts the whole basis of a justice system.

Crap. If they are too arogant or too stupid to drive within the law then they should be removed from the road as they have proven themselves to be a public menace.

"Society has determined that stealing a sheep is unacceptable. The law is the law. You knew the law, and therefore the consequences of your action. You will hang. Stop whingeing..."

Hanging was repealed a very long time ago and nobody ever got hung for stealing a sheep, (except for maybe in the very dark ages or in Australia). And don't knock my analogies if you are planning on using ones like this yourself!

I should point out that I am happy to be labelled a woolly-minded liberal with totally unrealistic ideals. You need to have a few of us in society.

"Few" being the most relevant word in these two sentences!

[2_SL0]

Go ask a six year old who's mum has just been killed by someone speeding for their quantitative opinion on how much harm that person caused. Or for that matter the mother of the young dude who wipe himself out on a power pole this morning. Its all relative to your personal experiences. Yours are obviously very different to mine.

I dont deny what your saying, its a sad fact. But both vifferman and Mike L raised some valid points. Its the attitude that is proberly the biggest problem.
I dont see the speed is the issue, its the person behind the wheel. Im sorry but I dont see targeting the person who is doing 100-115kmh is going to fix the problem. You have to target the attitude and develop BETTER driving skills. Instead of trying to lower the the average speed. Why dont we attempt to lift the quality of driving. I imagine that would result in a far better driving record for the country.