Fast and Safe

[Alan Wilkinson]

I've attached a chart that clearly shows decreasing death, injury and hospitalisation rates alongside the increasing vehicle fleet. The source was the LTSA web site sometime last year.

The only relevant point here is that the rate of increase in the vehicle fleet has been insignificant compared with the increase in injuries from 2001.

[Midnight 82]

Complete rubbish. It depends how they drive. On back country roads the safe speed can vary from 20 km/h to 120 km/h and everything in between. Drivers decide for themselves what speed to travel the whole journey and it has absolutely nothing to do with arrogance or (lack of) consideration of other road users.

:spudwhat: So what are you saying that we shoult forget the laws and do what ever we want

[Alan Wilkinson]

These stories are the ones that reveal the true intent of the persons responsible for the web site. Mr Wilkinson is just another wealthy police hater like Bob Jones.

Pathetic rubbish. I judge all people by their actions. I know some fine policemen. But I can recognize low-life scum when and wherever I see them too. Others are welcome to have different opinions. I haven't made any comments about you, nor will I. You are free to answer my questions or tell me to get stuffed. But the questions will remain.

[Alan Wilkinson]

So what are you saying that we shoult forget the laws and do what ever we want

I am saying three things.

First, if any regulation is intended to promote safety then it should be a valid defence for any accused to prove that his/her actions were safe in the circumstances. So if you are doing 60 km/h on a clear wide straight road with no-one in sight then likely you could successfully defend against a charge of exceeding 50 km/h.

Second, (and the first change would force this) speed enforcement should revert to common-sense (which seems to be what Spudchucka practices) and prosecute only dangerous and stupid behaviour.

Third, we need to find ways to cater for different needs and not try to force everyone to the same speed. Different kinds of vehicles and different kinds of people doing different kinds of travelling need to be treated differently and with respect. I don't believe bureaucrats will ever do this, so I think there needs to be a move to private enterprise in the provision and operation of road systems.

[SPman]

:spudwhat: So what are you saying that we shoult forget the laws and do what ever we want

I dont think it is a matter of "forgetting" the laws.
I have always been of the opinion to follow the intent of the law, not the letter of the law. When driving / riding, I am always weighing up the conditions and surroundings of where I am and ride/drive accordingly, taking into account speed limits, traffic density, off road densities, etc. In 50 k areas I do travel faster than 50k were I feel it is safe and prudent to do so, as in 100k zones. Conversely, I also travel slower than the limit if I consider the conditions warrant it. What I dont do is slavishly follow the limit regardless. Occasionally I fall foul of the enforcement division - I dont like it but...cest la vie!
Saying that however, I am constantly appalled by a large number of drivers apparent complete lack of ability/awareness/road skills/sensibility of when and where to speed up/slow down etc. I have come to the conclusion that this is due to the fact, that probably only about 10 -15% of drivers have any interest at all in the what/why and how to properly control a vehicle on the roads, the rest couldnt give a toss - they just want to get from A to B somehow, and driving is how they do it. They arent trained properly, they have little skill in vehicle control, they dont even seem to be aware of anything outside a 2m radius of their vehicle. Basically, they dont have a clue.
To them, a car is just another consumer item, like a TV.They are dangerous at any speed. And that is what the authorities are focussing their campaigns on - the lowest common denominator of bad skills, no awareness, fear of injury, people who are afraid of their vehicles and being on the roads with others. They dont really care about those who are more accomplished drivers with higher skills and awareness levels, because they are very much in the minority. Concentrated, hands on driver training schemes are very expensive and take a long time to start having any long term visible results, even though I consider it is the only way to go. It is easier to beat the masses into submission, from a beauracrats point of view. And it can work, to a degree, in the short term. But long term.......

oops...

[Jantar]

.... To them, a car is just another consumer item, like a TV.They are dangerous at any speed. And that is what the authorities are focussing their campaigns on - the lowest common denominator of bad skills,
:

And this is the very reason that Politicians wont change the laws to reflect common sense. They are trying to protect the idiots from themselves, and in the process take revenue from everybody else.

It would make sense to most riders and drivers to have a more graduated system which recognises differing levels of skill and experience. But our police/tax gatherers would have a very difficult job in assessing a person's licence type before stopping them.

Alan Wilkinson's idea that it should be a defence to show that safety is/was not compromised would seem to me to be a good way to assess compliance with traffic regulations.

[Rainbow Wizard]

Concentrated, hands on driver training schemes are very expensive and take a long time to start having any long term visible results, even though I consider it is the only way to go. It is easier to beat the masses into submission, from a beauracrats point of view.

Swap all those gory pseudo accident ads for those of a type that actually educate. Too easy eh.

[MSTRS:Me]

Not something real ?? God forbid

[SPman]

Swap all those gory pseudo accident ads for ones that actually educate. Too easy eh.

Like those Peter Brock ads.

[Rainbow Wizard]

Not something real ?? God forbid

"Swap all those gory pseudo accident ads for ones that actually educate. Too easy eh"

OK OK, play devil's advocate. Thanks. Surely you didn't think I meant to play ads of real accidents? Try this:

Swap all those gory pseudo accident ads for those of a type that actually educate. Too easy eh

[Alan Wilkinson]

The first question about Govt advts is whether bureaucrats actually know anything that is worth communicating.

One of the things they could know and communicate is what the road surface quality and variability is. At least then the public could put pressure on for high standard build and maintenance, and better understand where and what the risk areas and conditions are.

Duynhoven says they are going to do more measurements of skid resistance and I want to see them published publicly and promptly.

Another point is that I think young drivers would benefit from learning to drive a bike first and much better understand road conditions. Then we mightn't have girls killing themselves on wet corners in a car at 60km/h.

[Indo]

As for the woaman arrested for refusing to say where her boyfriend was (as if she knew). The Police were dumb enough to allow her back into her home unescorted where she got a message to her solicitor. When the cops heard that, they rapidly "unarrested" her and departed. This was thuggery plain and simple, a tactic that works on a lot of people, but she was smart enough for it to fail.

I always figured you were a disgruntled ex mot and a police hater, but really how can anyone with even the tiniest bit of common sense believe that shit?

Let me explain things to you. Police on a BURGLARY patrol saw a car they knew was associated with a well known criminal whom they wanted to catch. The criminal saw Police and decided to depart in a hasty fashion. When Police get to the vehicle they find the criminals girlfriend and her sister in the car. Now generally the partners of criminals are quite involved in crime themselves, you know receiving stolen goods and the like. Anyway as the driver of the car (the burglar) was commiting an offence by driving the vehicle, his passengers legally have to provide the officers with the full details of the driver including his address etc.

The girlfriend obviously did not want the Police to locate her boyfriend the criminal so refused to provide any details, she then instructed her sister to also not provide any details. The girlfriend was then warned and continued to break the law by protecting her criminal boyfriend. She was then arrested by the Police who were not really interested in arresting her but had no choice as she effectively forced them too.

Yet Alan Wilkinson this 'crusader' for truth and fact takes this episode after reading a ridiculously biased Sunday Star Times Article (you know that crappy tabloid) and posts it on his site as fact. He labels the officers who were trying to catch a burglar and acting entirely within the law as "A disgrace to my sex, three carloads of cops bullying a teenage mother. Just a gang of low-life thugs in my book". This genius in his quest then claims that Police were only acting to gain revenue off poor criminals.

Yes Alan Wilkinson is definately an impartial crusader for truth, justice and fact.

[Alan Wilkinson]

So the police were using the road tax law as a pretext to forcibly extract information from a suspect's partner regarding another matter?

And if the lawyer quoted was right, failure to give such information is not an offence subject to arrest, but only a ticket/summons?

[spudchucka]

As expected replies to Alan Wilkinson have degenerated into abuse, as sure sign of a weak counter-argument.

Do you mind pointing out the abuse. As far as I'm concerned I've done my best to answer Alan's questions fairly and accurately. When he dropped in the emotive BS question, "Are you happy about working for an organisation like that?" my attitude towards him has changed from being willing to give him a fair go to one of He's just another fuckwit like Lou. By the way that "abuse" was aimed at you, you always qualify yourself for a round of it.

[spudchucka]

Complete rubbish. It depends how they drive. On back country roads the safe speed can vary from 20 km/h to 120 km/h and everything in between. Drivers decide for themselves what speed to travel the whole journey and it has absolutely nothing to do with arrogance or (lack of) consideration of other road users.

Then its their own responsibility if they get a ticket, if they elect to exceed a posted speed limit. Where are the tickets primarily being collected? On the back country roads where you say its safe to exceed 100kph or on the main arterials?