Fast and Safe

[spudchucka]

This is getting rather tedious, but I will try once more:

Yes, there is a long term trend everywhere in the developed world to reduced traffic casualties.

However, in New Zealand there has been a sharp upward trend in injuries concurrent with the introduction of rigid enforcement of speed limits. There has been no detectable impact on the long term trends in fatalities.

This has nothing to do with any individual annual totals and the charts are all based on monthly figures in any case.

Its getting tedious because the whole arguement always goes around in circles. Why? Because there is just as much data, stats, research etc on both sides of the arguement to cancel each others arguements out.

Truth be known I don't pay any attention to stats or research, its usualy produced / published by people without any grasp on the reality of the subjects they are reporting on. My opinions are formed according on what I see every day regardless of what looney campaigners, politiicians, LTSA or police hierachy for that matter publish to promote their individual causes.

[MSTRS:Me]

It's a shame to waste my 3000th post on this, but rather than developing respect for your position Mr Wilkinson, it has plummeted rather quickly.

You have resorted to patronising questions, attempting to bait a policeman I happen to respect into defending his career and labelling him as tedious, and fundamentally showing a lack of respect for your position as a very new member of a forum devoted to the social aspects of motorcycling. Not only that, you take an intellectual stance on your viewpoint, and contradict that by using emotive arguments when pushed hard to explain your position by someone with a differing view.

You have demonstrated an attitude that is merely the flipside of the former LTSA. They have their propaganda, and you have yours. I rather suspect that the common sense solution lies somewhere in between.

All in all, not a very politic way to attempt to recruit supporters.

A 'glorious beacon of light' illuminating the middle ground of a rapidly degenerating, polarised argument that can only go in circles.

[spudchucka]

A first step is simply to build at least four lane divided highways on the main arterials and make slower traffic keep left.

Then we could have toll lanes and routes for higher speed travel.

Hans Monderman is producing better human engineering for urban road sharing in Europe which puts more responsibility on the road users.



No, private roads cost the same or less than public roads. Only the way they are paid for is different. That goes for both initial capital funding and user pays.

Fair enough but can you really ever see little ol NZ being able to financially support a highway as you describe the full length of the country? With our current population levels.

If its a private toll road it will be the domain of the very rich only. Ordinary NZ's will have to lose their homes, farmland etc etc to provide room for the luxury of the few who could actually afford to indulge in it. I'm no lefty commie type but the sound of that is too much capitalism for my tolerance levels.

[spudchucka]

Kinda like the american nation aye.....

Not sure about that one but if you say so.......

[modalx]

It's a shame to waste my 3000th post on this, but rather than developing respect for your position Mr Wilkinson, it has plummeted rather quickly.

You have resorted to patronising questions, attempting to bait a policeman I happen to respect into defending his career and labelling him as tedious, and fundamentally showing a lack of respect for your position as a very new member of a forum devoted to the social aspects of motorcycling. Not only that, you take an intellectual stance on your viewpoint, and contradict that by using emotive arguments when pushed hard to explain your position by someone with a differing view.

You have demonstrated an attitude that is merely the flipside of the former LTSA. They have their propaganda, and you have yours. I rather suspect that the common sense solution lies somewhere in between.

All in all, not a very politic way to attempt to recruit supporters.

Fair enough - but looking back over the thread I'd say the other side of the argument has been at least as personal and disrespectful.

[Waylander]

Not sure about that one but if you say so.......

Trust me the news in the states is all turned inward and no one really cares what happens outside thier own little world. But I think that argument belongs in another thread so have fun with this one.

[MSTRS:Me]

God Almighty here we are again. Why is it so difficult to have a discussion about this without immediately climbing into entrenched polarised positions and personal attacks? Could we consider for a moment that Alan Wilkinson might not be an anarchistic crackpot with a chip on his shoulder? Maybe we could even imagine that our leaders and their enforcers might have at least begun with our best interests at heart however misguided they seem now?

Reading this thread I can sympathise with Spud and co for whom the burden of the defence weighs so heavily. The thing is that this is not actually about you or your colleagues Spud. The reason it is a hot topic for most people is that the current situation feels bad. It feels unfair when you get a ticket for 111ks in the middle of nowhere. It feels that way because you can't make yourself believe that what you have done is so dangerous or so wrong when the rule is so arbitrary. They know that the 111ks they were doing on the highway was definitely safer than the truck that passed them doing a legal 80ks on the Kopu hill. They recognise BS when they get handed it.

So you could argue that this is just overconfidence or some lack of understanding about the nature of vehicles and driving. Interestingly though, in places where speed limits are raised, the average vehicle speed only rises a few ks (Montana experience amongst others). Why? Because people are actually taking responsibility for their speed. They are not, in fact, speed crazed lunatics straining to be let off the leash. Most people (no not all people but this is about a population based approach to reducing harm on the road and there will always be a few...) have a good feel for what is safe for their skills, their vehicle and the conditions.

Now you can crush this sense of personal responsibility with draconian controls (as has been ably demonstrated in Victoria) with the intention of 'resetting' attitudes and I guess that might be an acceptable way to go if the benefits could be clearly demonstrated. Thats why the stats are so important. We spend a mountain of cash on trying to crack this nut but the evidence is that we are definitely not making much of a difference and quite probably throwing good money after bad.

The wilderness of reason is experiencing a huge rise in population. My stats say that 10 minutes has seen a doubling of said population.

[spudchucka]

Reading this thread I can sympathise with Spud and co for whom the burden of the defence weighs so heavily. The thing is that this is not actually about you or your colleagues Spud.

I don't take any of it personaly although I can understand from my posts that some might think I do. Its my style of writing and I'm not prone to holding back when confronted with what I perceive to be BS. The few KB people that have met me, (I think they would at least), would tell you that I am a pretty mild mannered person.

Alan Wilkinson and Lou etc would go up in my estimation if they stuck to the topic that they say is their issue, traffic enforcement policy. But they don't, they carry on with a campaign of dirty politics and smear tactics simply to discredit the police at any opportunity. For this reason I have nothing but utter contempt for them.

[MSTRS:Me]

I don't take any of it personaly although I can understand from my posts that some might think I do. Its my style of writing and I'm not prone to holding back when confronted with what I perceive to be BS. The few KB people that have met me, (I think they would at least), would tell you that I am a pretty mannered person.

Alan Wilkinson and Lou etc would go up in my estimation if they stuck to the topic that they say is their issue, traffic enforcement policy. But they don't, they carry on with a campaign of dirty politics and smear tactics simply to discredit the police at any opportunity. For this reason I have nothing but utter contempt for them.

Well Spud, your manners are pretty

[modalx]

I don't know that the intention is to rubbish the police. They just cop it because they have to front the policy. The frustration is because of the sense of unfairness and increasingly because its seems there is lots of pain with not much gain.

[Blakamin]

It seems us KB'rs aren't a bunch of blind statistic followers, aye?

[Jantar]

.... they carry on with a campaign of dirty politics and smear tactics simply to discredit the police at any opportunity. For this reason I have nothing but utter contempt for them.

Unfortunately, Spud, there are enough of your colleagues who give them the ammunition and reason. I know enough cops socially to know that most of the bad press that the NZ police receive isn't due to the guys on the front line, it is handed down from much higher up. There area few front line ones who just enjoy making life hard for the average citizen, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

Don't pay too much attention to what appears to be directed at you. I know anything I say bad about the police force isn't directed at you or any of the other cops on here, its directed at the politicians who make the policy. Chances are that some of the personal comments that others are making is also directed more at the system rather than at you.

[hobdar]

K. In my opinion you can make Stats to say what you like. Especially when there are multiple factors taken into account. And you ignore aspects or blips in the statistics. Generally people who use stats have a specific point of view and attempt to use the stats to uphold that view point, the problem comes when people who are 'zealous' about their view that they begin to ignore aspects of the stats that they do not like. Or present the statistics without fully explaining what they are saying...ok so thats my rant on stats now Alan seems to be presenting a very liberal point of view on driving that scares me, and i don't even ride a bike yet......one thing he said was

Drivers don't need speed limits to control their speeds safely. They do it already without endangering others. Moreover, almost all of them are good at it.

So next we have the public allowed to decide if they give way or stop at an intersection...and maybee we should let them decide if they keep a gun and not get a licence for it, after all it is only the Governement that tells us they need one and it is a money making exercise after all....

And the assumption that we are all good drivers who drive safely and limit our speed is based on what proof that this is the case....

Has any one else noticed that people actually go faster in the rain....

Every day i drive i see people who drive too fast, erratically, turn in front of other cars (note i am currently a 'cage' driver looking for a bike) do things that only by sheer coinciedence does not result in a crash, bikers zooming in between traffic on the motorway, sometimes only norrowly missing cars. And other people who have obtained their licence (i assume) and been passed as fit to drive a car, but i sure as heck am thankful for the Road Code and the police who are there to help us be safe and to keep us safe from others on the road.

Alan also atated that Quote: "Originally Posted by Alan Wilkinson
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. "

Why stop at 120km/h why not 140 + or 160 + ? There are people in our society who think that those speed limits are safe, there is a regular occurance of people being caught at these speeds.

This is why we have laws. They are put in place by Government, enforced by the police and when they are broken punishement is handed down by the judicary to protect us from ourselves and from others.

To have a society with out laws or enforcement would lead to higher rates of injury, death and carnage not just on our roads but in society as general.

All credit to the cop on the beat, in all my dealings (many both on the right side getting help and wrong side being a pillock) they have been fair and curteous. if i speed i deserve a ticket simple...they enforce the law not make the law and in a democratic society that division needs to be in place.

[Waylander]

Was reading another thread and wonderd how Alan would answere this; if everyone already drives at a safe speed for them why do boyracers wreck and endanger others everyday they are on the road? Obviosly they are not driving at speeds that are safe for them and are a great risk to others. Granted not all boy racers are idiots. So how would you propose to keep everyone safe if all of them could drive at whatever speed they want?

[spudchucka]

Well Spud, your manners are pretty

Repaired..... I left out the "mild" part.