Fast and Safe

**Alan Wilkinson** · 10th February 2005, 15:54

Originally Posted by Mongoose

And those figures are varifiable and accurate (not that i would think you would post other wise)
Can see one flaw already, what you were proposing would NOT do away with Traffic Policing. By how much you dont indicate.

"Fines and current court costs re speeding are probably another $150M." is obviously at best a gestimate, and what you propose would INCREASE court costs as EVERY ticket would be contested, no saving made at all

You can go onto the govt budget websites and check for yourself, but they are around those numbers so it gives you the relative sizes which are large.

Yes, there would be residual costs to be met. Not every ticket would be contested, but there would be far fewer of them in total - maybe only one third or even less. And as I said there are the future benefits as well to support the case for investment.

**Mongoose** · 10th February 2005, 15:58

Originally Posted by Alan Wilkinson

You can go onto the govt budget websites and check for yourself, but they are around those numbers so it gives you the relative sizes which are large.

Yes, there would be residual costs to be met. Not every ticket would be contested, but there would be far fewer of them in total - maybe only one third or even less. And as I said there are the future benefits as well to support the case for investment.

Idealology rarely meets reality though.
Very few tickets are contested now, you catch cry back there was the RIGHT to contest, to have proven by whatever means you have, that what you did, ie speeding was safe, and that will take up far more court time.Maybe fewer tickets, but more court time that way.

**Alan Wilkinson** · 10th February 2005, 16:04

Yes, some court cases will be longer, but useful - examining expert evidence to determine what is safe. But they will set precedents so that people will not need to go over that ground again, and can learn from other's experiences.

At present it is all about legal technicalities - almost nothing to do with safety gets looked at - unless there is a crash.

**Mongoose** · 10th February 2005, 16:08

"But they will set precedents so that people will not need to go over that ground again, and can learn from other's experiences."

That is exactly what you want to challenge now, and yet will give up that right at a later date?
IF(notice BIG IF) for the sake of debate, your law came into effect, people would demand the right to challenge any and every ticket they got, after all a precedent is only someone elses opinion.

**Alan Wilkinson** · 10th February 2005, 16:28

Originally Posted by Mongoose

"But they will set precedents so that people will not need to go over that ground again, and can learn from other's experiences."

That is exactly what you want to challenge now, and yet will give up that right at a later date?

I don't understand what you mean by that.

Originally Posted by Mongoose

IF(notice BIG IF) for the sake of debate, your law came into effect, people would demand the right to challenge any and every ticket they got, after all a precedent is only someone elses opinion.

They have the right now, but it costs money. The only difference is that under my proposal they could challenge on safety grounds, not just on legal technicalities. Again, it costs money. The courts are not sympathetic to foolish challenges - they would cost the defendent more money than those with a sound basis.

**Mongoose** · 10th February 2005, 16:54

Originally Posted by Alan Wilkinson

I don't understand what you mean by that..

Simple, you do not like the system as it is, want to challenge it to "Prove" what you did was safe, set a precedent and thereby set the bench mark(convenientlky forgetting that a majority of tickets under your scheme would have enough variables to not have commonality for a precedent) taking the right of those following you to challenge. Same applies now, precedents have been set, therefore your form of defence is not applicable.

But, while you are on about facts to everyone, wanting us all to back up what we say how about these examples of what you say?

I aim to discover and publish the truth irrespective of what anyone thinks.
Is that the truth according to Alan Wilkinson?

How is this difference to be accommadated?
absolutely agree that all kinds of needs should be met by our road transport system. It is clear from the research that there are different needs. For a simple example, on average, women prefer to drive 7 mph slower than men. Those differences should be catered for and not ignored or suppressed.

More opinion here?
I would like to see private operators running toll lanes and new toll roads with freedom to innovate and provide services for different kinds of users

Speculation not fact?
In the Central police district, police are now issuing 6500 speed tickets per month instead of 3000 and there are now 100 traffic injuries a month whereas if the trend prior to rigid speed limit enforcement had continued there would have been about 50.

Later to be admitted as such to make a point?
I extrapolated and 50 is probably a little too low. But the basic argument doesn't change.

How to make friends on a biker site?
ps - had a bike when I was younger, now enjoy a good car.

Lastly
You are free to answer my questions or tell me to get stuffed. But the questions will remain.
Why did i post this you ask? because Alan, when others challenged you, you DEMANDED they came up with facts to back what they said up, but Oh No, a different rule applies to you, why is this?
On that last point, you were asked numerous sensible questions, continually ignored them, again, different standards.

**speedpro** · 10th February 2005, 17:51

Originally Posted by Blakamin

ok, I know I'm not marty, but I suppose you'd like a graph?????

why don't you get out and volunteer to scrape people off the road??? too busy crunching numbers???

Might just be a statistic to you, buddy, but it's someones fucking life that becomes a red mess. go volunteer, you'll see for yourself....

I don't think Alan is arguing that people are being hurt or killed. The issue is what to do about what is causing it and indeed what is actually causing it.

Are some people here deliberately misinterpreting Alan's statements and the facts he produces? Facts which are generally backed up by verifiable evidence such as "independant" research. The research mentioned in another thread into motorcycle accidents highlights causes of accidents which probably applies to general traffic here in NZ. Speed which is focused on by the enforcement authorities here as the "obvious" cause of most of our driving ills was down the list.

**Blakamin** · 10th February 2005, 18:42

Originally Posted by speedpro

I don't think Alan is arguing that people are being hurt or killed. The issue is what to do about what is causing it and indeed what is actually causing it.
.

I realise that, but just putting them as numbers and saying Marty scraping up bodies is an "opinion" without the stats is just bullshit....

**Mongoose** · 10th February 2005, 18:44

Originally Posted by speedpro

I don't think Alan is arguing that people are being hurt or killed. The issue is what to do about what is causing it and indeed what is actually causing it.

Are some people here deliberately misinterpreting Alan's statements and the facts he produces? Facts which are generally backed up by verifiable evidence such as "independant" research. The research mentioned in another thread into motorcycle accidents highlights causes of accidents which probably applies to general traffic here in NZ. Speed which is focused on by the enforcement authorities here as the "obvious" cause of most of our driving ills was down the list.

Going by what Alan has said on this forum so far, he has at best half an idea because there has not been enough thought put in past what he wants, ie no firm thoughts on how to reach his objective

**Alan Wilkinson** · 10th February 2005, 19:24

Originally Posted by Mongoose

Simple, you do not like the system as it is, want to challenge it to "Prove" what you did was safe, set a precedent and thereby set the bench mark(convenientlky forgetting that a majority of tickets under your scheme would have enough variables to not have commonality for a precedent) taking the right of those following you to challenge. Same applies now, precedents have been set, therefore your form of defence is not applicable.

It's nothing to do with precedents. It's the way the law is written that prevents a challenge to speed limits on the basis of safety.

Originally Posted by Mongoose

I aim to discover and publish the truth irrespective of what anyone thinks.
Is that the truth according to Alan Wilkinson?

No.

Originally Posted by Mongoose

How is this difference to be accommadated?
absolutely agree that all kinds of needs should be met by our road transport system. It is clear from the research that there are different needs. For a simple example, on average, women prefer to drive 7 mph slower than men. Those differences should be catered for and not ignored or suppressed.

We discussed some options. Obviously different lanes, roads, and private providers. But I don't pretend to have all the answers. Recognising the problem would be the first step.

Originally Posted by Mongoose

More opinion here?
I would like to see private operators running toll lanes and new toll roads with freedom to innovate and provide services for different kinds of users

Yes, and clearly such.

Originally Posted by Mongoose

Speculation not fact?
In the Central police district, police are now issuing 6500 speed tickets per month instead of 3000 and there are now 100 traffic injuries a month whereas if the trend prior to rigid speed limit enforcement had continued there would have been about 50.

Absolutely not.

Originally Posted by Mongoose

Later to be admitted as such to make a point?
I extrapolated and 50 is probably a little too low. But the basic argument doesn't change.

A log plot extrapolation is more accurate but only slightly over short timespans. And as we saw earlier in this thread log plots confuse a lot of people.

Originally Posted by Mongoose

How to make friends on a biker site?
ps - had a bike when I was younger, now enjoy a good car.

Just call it the truth.

Originally Posted by Mongoose

Lastly
You are free to answer my questions or tell me to get stuffed. But the questions will remain.
Why did i post this you ask? because Alan, when others challenged you, you DEMANDED they came up with facts to back what they said up, but Oh No, a different rule applies to you, why is this?
On that last point, you were asked numerous sensible questions, continually ignored them, again, different standards.

Opinions are free, facts are sacred. We are all free to have our own opinions, but not to pass them off as facts. I answered all questions which I thought were sensible and where the questioner genuinely wanted to listen to an answer.

**spudchucka** · 10th February 2005, 19:35

Originally Posted by Alan Wilkinson

And after going all round in circles on the arrested woman red-herring, we finish up that she was probably arrested illegitimately anyway which accounts for why she was then released with no charge.

You only read YOUR posts, aye.

**Mongoose** · 10th February 2005, 19:36

It's nothing to do with precedents. It's the way the law is written that prevents a challenge to speed limits on the basis of safety

So, you know for a FACT that no one has EVER challenged the law on safety?

No.
You are way to madest

We discussed some options. Obviously different lanes, roads, and private providers. But I don't pretend to have all the answers. Recognising the problem would be the first step.

no we didn't, you came up with some theories but did not back them up with the how. maybe you think you have one way of funding all this, the traffic police and thre Courts, or according to you the lack of them.Not a runner.

Opinions are free, facts are sacred. We are all free to have our own opinions, but not to pass them off as facts. I answered all questions which I thought were sensible and where the questioner genuinely wanted to listen to an answer.

Yopur problem then is you mix fact and opinion to suit yourself, exagerate to suit yourself but expect ALL others to come up with the FACTS

**Skyryder** · 10th February 2005, 19:36

Originally Posted by Mongoose

Going by what Alan has said on this forum so far, he has at best half an idea because there has not been enough thought put in past what he wants, ie no firm thoughts on how to reach his objective

I thought he wanted to privatise the roads. I have read his website and I must confess that the man can handle himslef in a debate. http://www.fastandsafe.org/site.aspx...l/LTSAComments
and http://www.fastandsafe.org/site.aspx/Pages/Media/Haden. Mind you it's not hard to cut this man down to size. Done it myself on one occasion.
His stats have survived peer review. Here is a man who is and can take on the 'estabishment' at their own game. He talks the same language as them but comes to a different conclusion. Is he right or wrong?. On this I am undecided. But I am leaning to the view that he may just have something. To me his biggest stumbling block is the privatising of highways. If this is his answer then he is going to need Govt legislation to do so. Now if the Govt. is willing to do this on private highways why not on public roads? After all the mindset is the same. Perhaps Allan you could elaborate futher on this point.

Skyryder