Fast and Safe

[bugjuice]

85% of stats are made up on the spot. Everyone knows that.. I did a survey earlier on it..
The other thing I was thinking of with that, is if someone came to you and asked you that, would you say that you didn't want policing and/or speed cameras? Kinda makes us look irresponsible, and we can get a bad rep at the best of times..

[Blakamin]

If everyone actually did 100 I'd be happy.... sick of people doin friggin 70-80 where 100 is legal... sick of people slowing down to 80 to go around a bend in the friggin road thats marked at 95... sick of people doin 80 the second a passing lane finishes (hi mr bmw... you didnt like me knocking on your window when you stopped to tell you the limit wasn't 80, did you)
making different speed limits just makes more angry drivers... I dont wanna get stuck behing nana coz someone said she could do 70 in a 100 zone.. and I dont want some prick doin 150 overtaking me when I'm in a cage with my daughter either... make it 100-110 and make sure people actually do it!!!

[Indo]

It is fairly easy to write a survey question to provide the answer that you want

It could have been but given that the Herald is hardly pro-police and the survey was undertaken by them in reponse to a LTSA survey which people claimed was biases i doubt very much that this would be the case.

Either way with a result of that margin regardless of the questions asked it does make a mockery of Wilkinsons claim that the general public are behind him.

He makes some other interesting claims also, that the people who want to go slower are typically 'less educated, poorer' whereas those who want to go faster are 'more educated and affulent'.

[bugjuice]

people who want to go slower are typically 'less educated, poorer' whereas those who want to go faster are 'more educated and affulent'.

interesting statement. In some ways, it kinda makes sense, in that those who can afford will push it, cos if they fuk up, they can afford to repair what damage they do, where as obviously if you don't have that sort of cash, you tend to not have such expensive fast machinery and can't afford to repair fukups.
But, that is quite a big generalisation to make.. I have no money, yet can't find the brakes..
I don't generally agree with that, but if this is the case, then I can see a point.. just not a very good one

[Hitcher]

those who want to go faster are 'more educated and affulent'.

Them durned affulents and their flithy gargres...

[MacD]

Either way with a result of that margin regardless of the questions asked it does make a mockery of Wilkinsons claim that the general public are behind him.

People also tend to give the "socially-acceptable" answer to these type of questions. I suspect that if the Herald had asked the same people if they "speed" when driving, 3/4 of respondents would have said no.

By the way I have no particular problem with speed limits and their enforcement, but I do have a problem with some of the arguments used by the LTSA.

It would be much more honest to say that the speed limit is set at 100 kmh because it is set at 100 kmh. I drove for many years with the open road speed limit set at 80, yet it was changed overnight. Did the "killers" doing 90 kmh suddenly become safe drivers overnight as well?

[Hitcher]

Did the "killers" doing 90 kmh suddenly become safe drivers overnight as well?

Yes, yes they did.

[Alan Wilkinson]

Thanks for all the interest in the FastAndSafe website. A few fact points:

a) The surveys were by LTSA. They and the police spend $30M annually to manipulate public opinion and then survey to make sure they keep getting funding, i.e. prove success.

b) The identification of different categories of road users and their speed preferences was by a Uni of Texas group under Prof Kara Kockelmann. She has a website that publishes all their papers - lots of interesting, competent (and unbiassed) stuff.

c) I have never claimed to have the public behind me. I aim to discover and publish the truth irrespective of what anyone thinks.

d) Motor cyclists should be very concerned about the ACC injury statistics - they are what is costing you a fortune in registration fees.

Regards
Alan Wilkinson (www.fastandsafe.org)

[Indo]

Thanks for all the interest in the FastAndSafe website. A few fact points:

a) The surveys were by LTSA. They and the police spend $30M annually to manipulate public opinion and then survey to make sure they keep getting funding, i.e. prove success.

....A Herald-DigiPoll survey, not in the least connected to the LTSA (unless they are part of this evil conspiracy as well ?)

c) I have never claimed to have the public behind me. I aim to discover and publish the truth irrespective of what anyone thinks.

".....We, the public, are sick of all this official deceit. We want our road transport to be faster, safer, cheaper and more flexible."

"f this Government doesn’t recognise this and act, it is likely to be shot and buried itself at the next election."

[Alan Wilkinson]

You are right, the Herald did do its own poll as well:

03.01.05
By MATHEW DEARNALEY


Most people support the use of police cameras - concealed or otherwise - to nab speeding drivers, despite a high degree of cynicism about their true purpose.

A Herald-DigiPoll survey of 1000 people aged 18 or over found 72.7 per cent thought it was fair to use them to crack down on speed.

Yet a little over half, 50.3 per cent, believed the main purpose was to line Government coffers.

Just 46 per cent thought speed cameras were used primarily to cut the death toll on the roads.

The survey, with a 3.1 per cent margin of error, suggested cameras would enjoy public support even if the Government withdrew an instruction for the police not to conceal them.

It found even stronger backing for hidden cameras - from 59.1 per cent of those surveyed - than cited in often-criticised research by Land Transport New Zealand.

That agency's latest annual survey of attitudes to road safety found 56 per cent of 1640 people supported hidden cameras, a result that many letters to newspapers claimed was due to self-serving questions.

Land Transport's survey showed 28 per cent opposed to hidden cameras, and 16 per cent neutral.

The Herald's survey showed 40 per cent opposed the idea and just 0.9 per cent were undecided.

Your second point is taken from a response to a George Hawkins article:

There is no apology to be made for focusing on speeding drivers. - Hawkins

We, the public, are sick of all this official deceit. We want our road transport to be faster, safer, cheaper and more flexible.

The LTSA is an incompetent, out of control monster that is a hindrance to all of these needs. It should be shot and buried.

If this Government doesn’t recognise this and act, it is likely to be shot and buried itself at the next election.
- FastAndSafe

On that comment, I think we were proved right. The government has since abolished the LTSA and split its functions between MOT and a new operational agency, LTNZ.

See also the severely critical parliamentary report released yesterday:

http://www.fastandsafe.org/site.aspx...111Calls4Feb05

[MacD]

Yes, yes they did.

Thank you for clarifying that for me!

Of course the real question is which poses the greater risk, travelling 10kmh over the speed limit or 10 kmh under? In the first situation the driver is likely to be the passer, whereas in the second they are likely to be the passee?

(Are those real words?)

[Hitcher]

(Are those real words?)

Yes and no.

[Lou Girardin]

Now I'm dying to see a debate between Spud, regurgitating his bosses stats, and Alan Wilkinson who knows the facts.

[spudchucka]

I aim to discover and publish the truth irrespective of what anyone thinks.

So long as the truth according to you and Lou pushes your own agenda. Your mentality is no better than the LTSA & police hierachy that you actively criticise.

[Alan Wilkinson]

Do you have any factual point to make, spudchucka?