Fast and Safe

[Clockwork]

Rubbish. All people have to do to avoid carnage on the roads is observe the road rules that we all studied when we first got our licences, maintain safe vehicles and stay on there own side of the friggin road. It really isn't that hard but for some people it seems to be exceedingly difficult.

If you can't stay on your own side of the road..... people will die at 100kph!

[Clockwork]

Maybe the insurance companies should take the American & Canadian approach and bump the premiums through the roof when their clients get speeding tickets?

If insurance was compulsary and drivers were heavily penalised for using a motor vehicle without insurance then they might think before putting themselves in a position where they may not be able to legally afford to use the roads.

After all the insurance companies as private enterprise need to turn a profit for their shareholders so why shouldn't they cover their arses by making those who have been found not observing acceptable driving standards pay more for cover? They do that in a way now with the no claims bonus that gets chucked out the window after a claim. The only difference would be that under the American example they are making a pre-emptive strike against the driver they assess as being more likely to crash.



I guess under Alan's example insurance companies aren't private enterprise??

You don't have to look hard on this site to find evidence that insurance companies are already trying to price Motorcycles (not just bad riders) off the road. The fact is that many insurance companies just don't want our business, we are in a minority and thay can afford to ignore us, consequently thay can, and will stick it to us.

If they continue to take this attitude how long will it be before they force you off your bike?

[Clockwork]

Speeding isn't a crime, its an offence. If it was a crime it would covered under the Crimes Act 1961.

Saying that speeding tickets make criminals of otherwise innocent people is hog wash and is only usually argued by people who; (A) are stupid enough to collect heaps of tickets and subsequently lose their licence on demerit points, or; (B) have a political agenda to push and use this emotive BS to strengthen their otherwise weak arguements.

It may have been in jest ,Spud. But I have seen you refer to offenders as "Road Criminals"

[James Deuce]

If you can't stay on your own side of the road..... people will die at 100kph!

That's a potential collective 200kph.

[James Deuce]

The whinge is superficial, anyone will do this when they feel they have been hard done by. You admit you broke the speed limit (as do I) are you prepared to accept you are a danger to other road users. If thats the case, and you're a rational human being (as I believe you are) then obviously you will never knowingly break a speed limit again. Otherwise you must accept that not all limits are appropriate for all circumstances.

It was a BS question as I tried to point out, but you ignored. You asked a deliberately loaded question, so beloved of anyone trying to spin an answer. A truly scientific investigation collects data with as little spin as possible, depending on the original postulate.

[Clockwork]

I mean no disrespect to you guys arguing for the staus quo. Undoubtably the the faster you go the bigger the mess (its simple physics init?). I must admit, I hadn't really considered the issues around others judging your speed. But; I still feel that 100kph is not appropriate for all roads, for all conditions.

To be honest I would be happier with the existing limits providing there wasn't the politcal pressure to enforce it at all costs. There will always be Police offices who will enforce "the letter of the law" , some, given the opportunity will take a more practical approach (these guys can make the present system work ). But to say all speed limits are appropriate at all times is to put your head in the sand. If the rules must be rigidly policed, then the applied limits should be more appropriate.

[Clockwork]

It was a BS question as I tried to point out, but you ignored. You asked a deliberately loaded question, so beloved of anyone trying to spin an answer. A truly scientific investigation collects data with as little spin as possible, depending on the original postulate.

Sorry, I didn't ignore you, I didn't understand your point.
(I even went to Stuff to check )

Sure, the question was loaded, obviously so. Does that make it any less relevant? Where is the spin?

[Clockwork]

That's a potential collective 200kph.

Yes, and I understand that e=mc2 which means that one vehicle doing 200kph releases four times the energy of one doing 100kph. The point I was arguing was that people would die if the limit was increased. They are already dying.

Also, as mass does form part of the above equation, maybe we need to look at the speed limits applied to 60 tonne trucks.

[James Deuce]

Sorry, I didn't ignore you, I didn't understand your point.
(I even went to Stuff to check )

Sure, the question was loaded, obviously so. Does that make it any less relevant? Where is the spin?

The way the question was stated would be regarded as entrapment in a legal system that allows entrapment as a defence.

There isn't a motorcyclist alive who hasn't ignored a speed limit, but coupling that with the second part of your question explains why you didn't get many responses.

Stuff is reknowned for creating polls that ask questions in a way that supports government policy, and usually coincides with a crest in both public opinion and a heinous crime that relates to the question. The resulting justification for a new law or amendment to an existing one, usually restricts or removes something that was previously regarded as a "right".

[Clockwork]

The way the question was stated would be regarded as entrapment in a legal system that allows entrapment as a defence.

There isn't a motorcyclist alive who hasn't ignored a speed limit, but coupling that with the second part of your question explains why you didn't get many responses.

Stuff is reknowned for creating polls that ask questions in a way that supports government policy, and usually coincides with a crest in both public opinion and a heinous crime that relates to the question. The resulting justification for a new law or amendment to an existing one, usually restricts or removes something that was previously regarded as a "right".

OK, thanks for that Jim2. re stuff. I honestly hadn't noticed, don't read their polls very often.

With regard to your second paragraph..... Well..... that's just what I was thinking, which is why I was getting so frustrated by the debate.

God knows the roads are full of f**k-wits, but the speed camera just isn't a good f**k-wit detector (hopefully, unfettered Police officers are). Pinging someone automatically because they are 10kph above the limit will (probably) reduce the road toll but it will inevitably piss-off lots of safe drivers.

[James Deuce]

God knows the roads are full of f**k-wits, but the speed camera just isn't a good f**k-wit detector (hopefully, unfettered Police officers are).

That's one of the most sensible statements I've seen in this thread yet.

[Clockwork]

Aw shucks...... thanks.

[Blakamin]

Otherwise you must accept that not all limits are appropriate for all circumstances.

of course... if every cage could stay at the limit over pi-cock, we would have a lot less boi racers...
but if i'm being a dick and breaking rules and I kill someone, and didn't die myself, I would top myself....end of story... I've known people that have done this and live with it... if "live" is the word.. most don't "live" ever again...

[Clockwork]

of course... if every cage could stay at the limit over pi-cock, we would have a lot less boi racers...
but if i'm being a dick and breaking rules and I kill someone, and didn't die myself, I would top myself....end of story... I've known people that have done this and live with it... if "live" is the word.. most don't "live" ever again...

I guess you can't say fairer than that, BK (that is assuming, that your speeding was the only contributing factor to the accident.)

BK, I've just posted on another thread where you discuss your Daughter. For her sake I hope your threat to top yourself is an exaggeration...... ya gotta think of the ones you leave behind also. After all, it would be your burdon, not theirs.

[speedpro]

Speeding isn't a crime, its an offence. If it was a crime it would covered under the Crimes Act 1961.

Saying that speeding tickets make criminals of otherwise innocent people is hog wash and is only usually argued by people who; (A) are stupid enough to collect heaps of tickets and subsequently lose their licence on demerit points, or; (B) have a political agenda to push and use this emotive BS to strengthen their otherwise weak arguements.

Pedantic is the word that springs to mind.

My last speeding ticket was 3-4 years ago on a nearly deserted piece of beautiful highway just north of Taupo in the middle of the day. 114kmh in a 100kmh area driving a mint Mitsi Lancer MX.