Fast and Safe

[Mongoose]

You seem to be always just looking for something to criticise. That response was in regard to police overloads and costs.

No, I was born & bred in Chch and lived there for 40 years. But I've been away a long time now so I don't pretend to make specific comments about it.

Example? Even the baby-snatch page has a connection and that's about the only one I can think of you might mean. And in that case I expressed my disgust that ever more draconian road safety measures are being misused for other purposes by the police.

Example? Why do others HAVE to supply examples when you yourself do not?Guess that also means that if your house had been burged you would be happy for the person involved to get off?

You seem to be always just looking for something to criticise. That response was in regard to police overloads and costs
That was but one example of your changing of topic

No, I was born & bred in Chch and lived there for 40 years. But I've been away a long time now so I don't pretend to make specific comments about it.

Dont pretend to make speciffic comments, you make NONE about the SI, so for once I would agree with you, none equal no speciffic.


Well I certainly don't believe people should get legal aid to make frivolous challenges to traffic tickets.

Frivilous in whose mind? According to you it should be everyones right to challenge on safety grounds. Each case would have its own peculiararities, so each case should beable to be challenged on safety grounds. According to youself, people decide when its safe to speed so why would they not challenge a ticket?

[Clockwork]

People will no doubt take the approach of a certain shotgun toting activist and call 500 witnesses who will all spout whatever purjury he wants them to.

The courts can't cope with the load they have now. The cost of the ensuing rort on the legal aid system would cost the country $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Spud!...... you assured me that the courts were available to listen to my infringement notice

(pt)

[Alan Wilkinson]

Everything is complex dependant on how in depth you want to examine it. Sometimes over examination just increases the fog, (unable to see the wood for the trees so to speak). Crashes are also extremely basic, the KISS formula is often relevant.

A driver lost control.
The car hit something.

There is one particular blind bend on my trip home where I just pray every time that nothing is coming the other way that is fast and heavy as I go around it. If there is then there is absolutely nothing I can do about it.

Coming the other way, it is a steep straight descent into it, a very sharp LH bend at the bottom with a long fall on the other side of the road and the road surface used to change from chip to glass just about the point you needed to brake. Plus the road carries a massive stream of tourists and we get plenty of rain.

Thankfully they have improved the surface, but I would like to think that someone is monitoring the skid resistence closely. Unfortunately, I doubt that is happening.

I don't know how many deaths there have been there, but certainly a number and several in the three years I have been driving it.

These are the kinds of hazards that need to be exposed to public view and political pressure. (And the safe speed into that bend is way, way below any speed limit.)

[Clockwork]

Not if they don't get legal aid.

..... and now you're saying that legal redess should only be available to people who can afford it.

[Mongoose]

These are the kinds of hazards that need to be exposed to public view and political pressure. (And the safe speed into that bend is way, way below any speed limit.)

Speed limits are maximums, not a compulsory speed you HAVE to do.
You point is what exactly

[Alan Wilkinson]

Well I certainly don't believe people should get legal aid to make frivolous challenges to traffic tickets.

Frivilous in whose mind? According to you it should be everyones right to challenge on safety grounds. Each case would have its own peculiararities, so each case should beable to be challenged on safety grounds. According to youself, people decide when its safe to speed so why would they not challenge a ticket?

That's the best question you've asked. I don't know the best answer, but one would be to limit legal aid to cases where the defendent was potentially liable to a certain minimum penalty - set above the level for simple speeding fines.

[Mongoose]

That's the best question you've asked. I don't know the best answer, but one would be to limit legal aid to cases where the defendent was potentially liable to a certain minimum penalty - set above the level for simple speeding fines.

That is one thing I have been trying to fathom out, while you have this grand big picture you seem to have forgotten the little pixels that make up this big picture.
This is why I see so many problems with what you propose and you see none, or maybe you do not want to see any?

Seeing as to how you like examples, you still do not know how this great plan will be financed.

[marty]

Because the number of tickets would drop back to the days when cops' common-sense discretion prevailed and a little below that, because even then some traffic cops had no common sense. I think that would be around 30% of what we have now, although it could be a lot less eventually as the law gets clarity and everyone learns from it.

that's a lot of opinion from someone who spouts facts as being the be-all and end-all.

[marty]

Opinions are free, facts are sacred. We are all free to have our own opinions, but not to pass them off as facts. .

remembered where it was

[speedpro]

That is one thing I have been trying to fathom out, while you have this grand big picture you seem to have forgotten the little pixels that make up this big picture.
This is why I see so many problems with what you propose and you see none, or maybe you do not want to see any?

Seeing as to how you like examples, you still do not know how this great plan will be financed.

People in the world can be seperated into two groups (sort of). There are "big picture" people and there are "small picture" people. The big pic dudes run companies and countries, not always well. The small pic persons look after the details with varying success. I'm a small p*ick person, I've even done psycho tests for something else and it came out. Alan would appear to be a big pic type of guy, IMHO. Obviously the details are important but the overall big picture needs to be formulated first which is what I believe Alan is attempting.

[speedpro]

This discussion is almost going "civil" at the moment. Is everyone getting a bit tired??

[Alan Wilkinson]

Speed limits are maximums, not a compulsory speed you HAVE to do.
You point is what exactly

That crash causes need to be investigated properly and necessary remedial action taken and maintained; that a well-informed public is necessary to ensure that happens; that safety requires consideration of matters other than speed limits.

[gav]

Know anyone that could be interested in these ?
http://www.grandprixlegends.com/DieC...atecode=WEB002

[Alan Wilkinson]

That is one thing I have been trying to fathom out, while you have this grand big picture you seem to have forgotten the little pixels that make up this big picture.
This is why I see so many problems with what you propose and you see none, or maybe you do not want to see any?

Seeing as to how you like examples, you still do not know how this great plan will be financed.

I'm a top down kind of guy. I like to work from principles down to detail. Also, detail usually needs to be decided by people at the coal-face.

[Mongoose]

I'm a top down kind of guy. I like to work from principles down to detail. Also, detail usually needs to be decided by people at the coal-face.

What, the details get put in the to hard backet, dreams are easier?
If that is your idea of research and planning, guess your idea is sunk before it starts, still everyone needs a hobby(horse), huh?