Fast and Safe

[Alan Wilkinson]

i want independent facts, i'm not going to your site

You ask me for the links and then refuse to look at them.

Fine, shows everyone what your views are worth.

[Alan Wilkinson]

Spectacular or emotive incidents like the spike in the road toll in 2003 just a few years after the introduction of the highway patrol? You have been more than willing to make a decision that the highway patrol and rigid traffic enforcement was responsible for this spike. What gives? Why the double standard?

Your keep trotting out this nonsense like a demented parrot but it doesn't make it true. I have never even mentioned the upward spike in 2003 or the downward spike in 2002. I simply plot all the data and let you look at it for yourself.

FYI it is the upward turn in 2001 injuries that concerns me most. Regarding fatalities, I regard the evidence as "no significant change".

[Alan Wilkinson]

Alan,
There's no way on this planet that every man, cat, and his dog isn't going to try their luck if there's any chance of getting out of a fine and/or demerit points. Virtually every single one of them will be playing the fast and safe card, and not just once. Heavens no. You can bet that an awful lot of these individuals (myself included) will also go on to fight every single speeding ticket they ever receive. This would place a massive burden on an already over stretched judicial process. It just wouldn’t be practical.

This would also mean the government would have to find even more money in order to sustain, or improve, the courts system so they were capable of handling a constant barrage of individuals, all chomping at the bit, to stick one up the police/govt/system etc. The government’s prosecution costs (legal representation, evidence gathering etc) alone would be astronomical.

If you lose, you pay the full cost of all parties. It would only cost the government if they take losing cases to court - or if they were silly enough to dole out legal aid to losers. They would soon learn those lessons.

[Alan Wilkinson]

hmmm...

just a few more than australia.....

Fine, now give us the Oz figures for the same year and the populations of both countries.

and here's a little sumfin from the european transport safety council... you pretty much only have to read the 1st 4 lines... in either column
http://www.etsc.be/documents/2rgb.pdf

You don't believe that 30% garbage do you? It is 100%. No crash can happen unless different relative velocities exist. Speed is ALWAYS a factor.

[Paul in NZ]

What is safe to one person is reckless to another. If Alan is buzzing along at 120, quite safe in his opinion, his actions may actually be terrorising the elderly or learner driver cruising along at 98. If he was coming the other way the elderly or learner driver may struggle to accurately assess his approaching speed and turn into his path, thinking he was moving slower than what he actually was.

I cannot actually believe I'm doing this but... Thats not quite what Alan is necessarily saying..

Given the current state of our roads, it is unlikely (IMHO) that unrestricted speed limits will work. The trick is to build roads where an approaching driver cannot turn across the traffic into his path. ie a proper motorway.

I have to say that I support this. Rather than just repaving existing roads I believe we should be building motorways with no side streets, intersections, traffic lights, round abouts, fruit stands, gas stations and (my personal fave) driveways. Both directions seperated so the only thing you need to worry about is the relative speed between the vehicles all going in the same direction.

Use of these roads will be restricted to vehicles capable of accelerating to and maintaining a reasonable speed.

To me, this is the only way higher speeds can be tolerated. You could never allow unlimited speeds on country roads for instance.

Example. By choice I commute in a 1989 Toyota Starlet over country roads and motorway. It is capable of 100kph, is well maintained and I have an excellent driving record so i assume I'm at least competent (or lucky).

On the piecok hill road, lesser drivers (everyone else ) in more modern cars easily catch us. And I mean easily. Cars have advanced that much in 16 years. If I can, I always pull over and let them pass (not that many options there) but usually catch them up later when someone else does not. Point is, not everyone wants to have the latest car so they can travel really fast. Also, the laws of physics don't change. More modern cars crash better but are designed to isolate the driver and flatter their ability. At the speeds they travel, there are no second chances for them or anyone else.

Even if I had a 'better' car (how can anything be better than a car you pay $1,500 for, do 60,000km in at 50mpg and have spent only $220 for a set of tyres) I would not go any faster because there are lots of drive ways, agricultural vehicles and cyclists (the bike is different)... It's not fair on other users..

Anyway. Thats my take for this morning. back to work...

[spudchucka]

It would only cost the government if they take losing cases to court - or if they were silly enough to dole out legal aid to losers. They would soon learn those lessons.

They have been doling out legal aid to losers ever since legal aid was introduced. They haven't learnt the lesson yet. Why do you think they would suddenly learn it under your scheme?

[spudchucka]

I simply plot all the data and let you look at it for yourself.

Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bulls hit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!B ullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullsh it!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bu llshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshi t!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bul lshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit !Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bull shit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit! Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bulls hit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!B ullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullsh it!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bu llshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!

[Biff]

It would only cost the government if they take losing cases to court.

I simply cannot believe that.
It would cost the government a fortune just to keep courts up and running in order to enable them to cope with non speeding related cases, let alone cater for the enormous increase in speeding related cases as well. We're possibly talking about new court houses, judges, clerks, security etc etc. The burden on the entire legal system would be huge, and there's no way that the real cost of implementing and maintaining this process would ever be passed onto losing parties in such a case.

From what I gather it wouldn't be the government taking losing cases to court anyway, it would be virtually everyone that ever receives a speeding ticket laying claim to have been driving safe and demanding their right to go to court in an attempt to fight the charge. These cases could get very complex & be time consuming. I just cannot see how this could ever work in practice.

[Blakamin]

The trick is to build roads where an approaching driver cannot turn across the traffic into his path. ie a proper motorway.

I have to say that I support this. Rather than just repaving existing roads I believe we should be building motorways with no side streets, intersections, traffic lights, round abouts, fruit stands, gas stations and (my personal fave) driveways. Both directions seperated so the only thing you need to worry about is the relative speed between the vehicles all going in the same direction.

Use of these roads will be restricted to vehicles capable of accelerating to and maintaining a reasonable speed.

To me, this is the only way higher speeds can be tolerated. You could never allow unlimited speeds on country roads for instance.

something like an autobahn??? like I said before, who's gunna pay the $1.8m per mile just to maintain it? (900000 euro per mile on autobahn every year)
whos going to pay to build it?

we're just gunna have to be putting up with what we've got! unfortunately...



and stop wasting the courts time... you think any judge in their right mind would just do "safe" traffic every case... by day 2 he/she wouldn't even look at details... "guilty, next"

[spudchucka]

Your keep trotting out this nonsense like a demented parrot but it doesn't make it true.

"Demented Parrot". I hardly think that was called for, you cock gobbling half bred troll dropping.

[spudchucka]

I simply cannot believe that.
It would cost the government a fortune just to keep courts up and running in order to enable them to cope with non speeding related cases, let alone cater for the enormous increase in speeding related cases as well. We're talking possibly new court houses, judges, clerks, security etc etc. The burden on the entire legal system would be huge, and there's no way that the real cost of implementing and maintaining this process would ever be passed onto losing parties in such a case.

From what I gather it wouldn't be the government taking losing cases to court anyway, it would be virtually everyone that ever receives a speeding ticket laying claim to have been driving safe and demanding their right to go to court in an attempt to fight the charge. These cases could get very complex & be time consuming. I just cannot see how this could ever work in practice.

But its a small price to pay to allow Alan to indulge himself, as far as he's concerned at least.

[spudchucka]

Given the current state of our roads, it is unlikely (IMHO) that unrestricted speed limits will work. The trick is to build roads where an approaching driver cannot turn across the traffic into his path. ie a proper motorway.

I have to say that I support this. Rather than just repaving existing roads I believe we should be building motorways with no side streets, intersections, traffic lights, round abouts, fruit stands, gas stations and (my personal fave) driveways. Both directions seperated so the only thing you need to worry about is the relative speed between the vehicles all going in the same direction.

In theory I support the use of motorways as major carriage ways. I would also support the possibility that speed limits could be raised on such pieces of roading.

However in reality it simply isn't going to happen in NZ unless we suddenly become a much wealthier country than we presently are. For this reason it is a redundant arguement.

[Clockwork]

What is safe to one person is reckless to another. If Alan is buzzing along at 120, quite safe in his opinion, his actions may actually be terrorising the elderly or learner driver cruising along at 98.

Judging from experience there are plenty of people who seem to think 100kph is reckless..... but that doesn't make them right.

[Paul in NZ]

something like an autobahn??? like I said before, who's gunna pay the $1.8m per mile just to maintain it? (900000 euro per mile on autobahn every year)
whos going to pay to build it?

we're just gunna have to be putting up with what we've got!



and stop wasting the courts time... you think any judge in their right mind would just do "safe" traffic every case... by day 2 he/she wouldn't even look at details... "guilty, next"

No.. An Autobahn is way over the top. More like extending the current motorway system out of the cities. Just add a few kms every year and stop stupid projects like the 3 lane through Mana. It needs to be a motorway not a half arsed halfbred thingy that satisfies all the goat breeding bicycle enthusiasts but accomplishes nothing.

They really really need to stop arsing about and come up with a proper vision for the future. It does not have to be all built in one year.

[spudchucka]

Judging from experience there are plenty of people who seem to think 100kph is reckless..... but that doesn't make them right.

They would be right from their own perspective. The roads are public places, open to and available for all people who hold a current drivers licence. The roads aren't the exclusive playground for those who want to fang along at 120+ kph. Because the roads are a public domain they have to cater to all users. Once Alan gets his four lane exclusive, user pays snobs highway anyone that can afford to can take off and play being Michael Schumacher as much as they want to. Untill then they'll just have to put up with speed limits and cops enforcing them.