Another speed camera rant, anyone had a Reminder Notice recently?

[Banesto John]

It has been shown time and time again that speed alone does not reduce public safety.

Oh so correct. Speed alone does not reduce public safety.

Please tell me how it is that we could make every driver so good that speed alone would be the only factor, so then it couldn't hurt anyone.

In the meantime, given that we all regard each other as the worst drivers in the world, I guess that rules out the speed-alone factor, as if we are such bad drivers, speed would rarely be the only factor in a crash.

What is clear is that whatever reason a crash happens for (cages or bikes, regardless of fault), the greater the kinetic energy dissipated, the greater the trauma.

So, on the distant day that everyone is a fantastic driver, I'd agree with increasing, even abolishing speed limits. Until then, I'd rather have the general vehicle fleet travelling a little slower, so when the crashes happen, they don't ouch so much.

[swbarnett]

I'd rather have the general vehicle fleet travelling a little slower, so when the crashes happen, they don't ouch so much.

While I agree with you that the faster you hit the greater the consequences, reducing the average speed of the vehicle fleet has been shown to have no affect on the road toll.

What you're talking about are the physics of an individual accident. What I'm talking about is the statistical relationship (actually the lack of it) between the average speed of the vehicle fleet and the road toll for the entire driving population.

[scumdog]

While I agree with you that the faster you hit the greater the consequences, reducing the average speed of the vehicle fleet has been shown to have no affect on the road toll.

What you're talking about are the physics of an individual accident. What I'm talking about is the statistical relationship (actually the lack of it) between the average speed of the vehicle fleet and the road toll for the entire driving population.

Well I bet all that is a great comfort to the two dead people in the ute that crashed up the road on Saturday night...

[Ixion]

So, they would have been saved if there had been a speed camera there ?

[scumdog]

So, they would have been saved if there had been a speed camera there ?

Yup.
Because a speed camera would have done less damage than the bridge they hit.

[swbarnett]

Well I bet all that is a great comfort to the two dead people in the ute that crashed up the road on Saturday night...

Perhaps they would be alive now if they had been travelling slower, perhaps not. This is not the point. The point is that, as a population, the number of deaths does not decrease as a result of a drop in the average speed of the vehicle fleet.

Riding or driving comes with inherent risks. With the number of vehicles on the road today people will die as a result of accidents and there's nothing we can do about it short of banning cars (then people will find some other way to kill themselves).

I'm not against measures that have some chance of reducing the road toll but I do get annoyed when our freedoms are curtailed in the name of public safety when it is abundantly clear that those freedoms do not contribute to the road toll.

[scumdog]

The point is that, as a population, the number of deaths does not decrease as a result of a drop in the average speed of the vehicle fleet.

Riding or driving comes with inherent risks. With the number of vehicles on the road today people will die as a result of accidents and there's nothing we can do about it short of banning cars (then people will find some other way to kill themselves).

I'm not against measures that have some chance of reducing the road toll but I do get annoyed when our freedoms are curtailed in the name of public safety when it is abundantly clear that those freedoms do not contribute to the road toll.

Soooo... The road toll would not increase at all if the speed limit was raised?

Regardless, the sheer number of vehicles on the road at present combined with population growth and paltry ineffective Court imposed penalties in addition to a drivers licence that is wayy too easy to get (and at too early an age) are going to make sure not many undertakers will go bankrupt.

Sadly for some.

[peasea]

[QUOTE=scumdog;1569939]Soooo... The road toll would not increase at all if the speed limit was raised?

QUOTE]

It has been so proven, because people don't get impatient and pull stupid overtaking stunts if the cruising speed is comfortable. 100kph on a dead straight road isn't comfortable. I can't be arsed finding the stats but in many instances raising the speed limit has resulted in fewer deaths per capita.

You can't explain that to the NZ authorities though, coz they're fuckwits.

[scumdog]

[QUOTE=peasea;1569983]

Soooo... The road toll would not increase at all if the speed limit was raised?

QUOTE]

It has been so proven, because people don't get impatient and pull stupid overtaking stunts if the cruising speed is comfortable. 100kph on a dead straight road isn't comfortable. I can't be arsed finding the stats but in many instances raising the speed limit has resulted in fewer deaths per capita.

You can't explain that to the NZ authorities though, coz they're fuckwits.

And where would go to for their next source of revenue if the limit was raised eh??

It seems a change of government from Sir Helen and her band of hoods would be a good thing - and soon.

[peasea]

[QUOTE=scumdog;1570025]

And where would go to for their next source of revenue if the limit was raised eh??

It seems a change of government from Sir Helen and her band of hoods would be a good thing - and soon.

Seriously???
I'd be much happier if the fine for failing to signal a lane change (or similar stupid act) was upped to 250 bucks or more and the speed limit raised to 115 or even 120 in some places, then to exceed that more sensible limit the fines/demerits could be heavier.

Let's not forget that when speed cameras were introduced the catchcry was that they were there to nab the "top ten percent" of speedsters. It was bullshit then and it's still bullshit today. The top ten percenters (way more scary than 1%'ers) either simply pay up or add it to the tab until a judge waives the total.

Most of the revenue comes from the average kiwi who transgresses minimally.

[peasea]

PS: You're right about the government.

[Banesto John]

[QUOTE=peasea;1570059]

Let's not forget that when speed cameras were introduced the catchcry was that they were there to nab the "top ten percent" of speedsters. It was bullshit then and it's still bullshit today. The top ten percenters (way more scary than 1%'ers) either simply pay up or add it to the tab until a judge waives the total.

The 85th percentile was the basis of the original speed camera settings. It is an internationally recognized standard. The way it was used was silly. Still, it's long gone.

Cameras snap a very small percentage, and they are the ones that moan the loudest. Ironically, they are the ones with the power to avoid being snapped, by slowing down.

Sick of tickets? Don't speed.

[peasea]

[QUOTE=Banesto John;1570337]

The 85th percentile was the basis of the original speed camera settings. It is an internationally recognized standard. The way it was used was silly. Still, it's long gone.

Cameras snap a very small percentage, and they are the ones that moan the loudest. Ironically, they are the ones with the power to avoid being snapped, by slowing down.

Sick of tickets? Don't speed.

Yes, massa, please don't beat me, massa.
IMHO the speed limit is too low for certain areas, that's all.
Sick of tickets? Don't stop!

[mashman]

I kinda like the idea for speed cameras to a certain extent. They have their place in inner city areas, although there are quite a few that are out to just catch the speeder on the straights. You may well argue that that's the point, but it was sold as a health and safety issue. The idea was to stop people speeding through high risk crash areas under the guise of you're going too fast, ergo you're gonna crash and that's where I disagree with speed cameras. Speed is very rarely the only factor in a crash... From what i;ve seen on the roads it's the road conditions and condition of the roads, coupled with speed (sometimes, perhaps even most of the time) that causes most of the crashes. When the sun is low in the sky of a morning or an evening, the crash rate goes up. When it's been raining the crash rate goes up. I truley believe that driver education is the only way to bring a death toll down... but as mentioned above Driving Nirvana will never happen and the only good speed cameras do on highways is to burn a little brake dust whilst the vehicle is in range before cranking on the power again... It's a no win argument.

[Clockwork]

Oh so correct. Speed alone does not reduce public safety.

Please tell me how it is that we could make every driver so good that speed alone would be the only factor, so then it couldn't hurt anyone.

In the meantime, given that we all regard each other as the worst drivers in the world, I guess that rules out the speed-alone factor, as if we are such bad drivers, speed would rarely be the only factor in a crash.

What is clear is that whatever reason a crash happens for (cages or bikes, regardless of fault), the greater the kinetic energy dissipated, the greater the trauma.

So, on the distant day that everyone is a fantastic driver, I'd agree with increasing, even abolishing speed limits. Until then, I'd rather have the general vehicle fleet travelling a little slower, so when the crashes happen, they don't ouch so much.

Oh, well if its all about kinetic energy then since a motorbike carries a lot less than a car at 100kph perhaps bikes should be allowed to go faster and for that matter maybe trucks should be required to go slower.