Up the speed limit

[Lee Rusty]

see forum titled YET another Fatality for good reasons to keep the speed down in places where you dont know the road. and to be careful even where you do.

You can't make the other drivers responsible for you - or if you do you deserve all they dish out, remember there first thing to say at a crash is always "I didnt see him"

[MikeL]

So in this endlessly revolving argument about what is a "safe" speed and what is a "safe" rider, sooner or later we come down to some basic philosophy. As I see it, there is only a limited number of possibilities that will take into account the wide variability of human factors and the fact that "safety" is not an absolute but a relative term, a spectrum of acceptable risk.

1. A libertarian, laissez-faire approach that minimizes the role of the state/law and maximises individual responsibility. There are no or very few restrictions, but culpability for negligence resulting in death/injury/damage is established in civil law courts with consequent (unlimited) monetary awards. A slightly more interventionist variation on this would include criminal charges as well as civil claims. Essentially the rider himself or herself decides what is "safe" and is only proved wrong when he/she has an accident, at which point he/she must face the full consequences of the faulty judgement.

2. An opposing view that seeks to prevent death/injury/damage by using legal sanctions to deter the behaviours that are considered to be direct or contributing causes of such deaths/injuries etc. The rider's judgement as to what is "safe" i.e. an acceptable risk is not relevant. The determination of "safety" is made more or less arbitrarily by the law, and, because it must be universal (i.e. apply to a range of riders' abilities and other factors), the acceptable risk point is necessarily conservatively judged. All must obey the same law regardless of individual circumstances.

Unless we reject the second approach entirely (are there any unreconstructed libertarians out there?), and leaving aside the revenue-gathering aspect, which is a separate issue, the question boils down to a difference of opinion about acceptable risk. From the point of view of legal restrictions, the only constructive approach, in my view, is to argue about the possibility of changing those arbitrary points (e.g. speed, blood alcohol level, etc.) on the basis of statistics, cost/benefit, law of diminishing returns and so on, and to make positive and practical suggestions as to how to reduce the variability of human factors (driver/rider training, licence requirements, etc.) and non-human factors (in particular roading quality).

Otherwise it's all a waste of time.

[bluninja]

MikeL, good points.

However I would reject point 2 and still not be a 'reconstructed libertarian'. Detterrants, sanctions, and punishments, merely move the issue from the doing, to the avoiding getting caught doing......up to a point where the fear of the consequences create a temporary compliance. If a good enough case is put for a specific safety measure, and there are clear benefits to individuals and society in general then people will generally adhere to the 'rules'. Where the case is not made, then a heavy cost in enforcement, and enforcement avoidance takes place (and speeding is a classic case) to police the rules.

I personally see no problem with an unrestricted speed limit on certain sections of road (as on the autobahn in Germany) and then reducing the speed as you approach intersections, hills, twisties.

TTFN

[Lee Rusty]

you are correct and point 1 is the way to go, but the personal responsibility thing is the problem - the most common excuses are the bike did this or the bike did that.
the rider is the one in charge, dont get me wrong, I have been know to break the speedlimits, I dont agree with the money collectors.
Equally I dont think that going fast is the way to improve your concentration.
If you admit you cant concentrate at 100 kph what makes you believe you can convince me you can do so at 140 or more.

I have read on this site about the poor biker getting snotted by mean ugly nasty car drivers. BUT it is not ALWAYS there fault.

IF BOTH parties had been more careful..................

MOst bike crashes involve speed and Im not just talking about the biker crashing all on his own with out any help from anyone.
The trouble comes when there is something solid to hit at speed.

I have been riding for 40 years and if there is one thing I have learned it is that there is always someone better than you or me.
SOme of the talk here would have Rossi shaking in his boots.

Also remember when talking about how fast you go and how good you are - younger less experianced riders are seeing what you say and think it is the norm.

[marty]

Originally posted by MikeL
.

1. A libertarian, laissez-faire approach that minimizes the role of the state/law and maximises individual responsibility. There are no or very few restrictions, but culpability for negligence resulting in death/injury/damage is established in civil law courts with consequent (unlimited) monetary awards.

as in california - but watch out if you survive a crash and the other person doesn't ........)no acc there!

2. An opposing view that seeks to prevent death/injury/damage by using legal sanctions to deter the behaviours that are considered to be direct or contributing causes of such deaths/injuries etc. The rider's judgement as to what is "safe" i.e. an acceptable risk is not relevant. The determination of "safety" is made more or less arbitrarily by the law, and, because it must be universal (i.e. apply to a range of riders' abilities and other factors), the acceptable risk point is necessarily conservatively judged. All must obey the same law regardless of individual circumstances.

as in NZ/Aussie - heavily policed traffic, little or no leeway, govt coughs up for injury, instead of personal insuance.

i guess you just have to figure out what risks you are prepared to take. you can only control your own actions, not those of others. don't forget we share the road with some people we wouldn't get into a car with....

[marty]

don't get me wrong - i'm all for open, open road speed limits, especially on dual carriage ways with no side road, or merged side road access. it's not the outright speed that kills, just the sudden stop...... (goes for cars and bikes).
wouldn't ride without a helmet/leathers/gloves/boots though

[Motu]

A typical example of system 1 is in the US there is no legal requirment to wear a seat belt - so they don't wear them...how do they protect the occupant from themselves - with an air bag.If you make poor choices,the choices are made for you in other ways.How long before the septics make the Japs put air bags on bikes.Air bags in jackets are out there - imagine if we had to wear those!

[Hoon]

I don't agree with increasing the speed limit.  Sure some of us may be able to drive/ride competently at those speeds but that doesn't mean everyone else in the country can too.

Secondly our roads aren't good enough quality to cater to those speeds.  There was a doco on not so long ago which showed dangerous high accident corners that weren't being upgraded because all the roading money was being spent on city congestion problems.  Higher speed limits means there will be more problem corners not getting attention which will result in more deaths.

The speed limit now is fine how it is.  We're all welcome to go faster if we want, you just have to be prepared to pay the price if you are caught.  Plus, its knowing that you are exceeding the speed limit that keeps you excited and alert, not the actual speed itself.

[bikerboy]

Well put MikeL.

The only problem with your conclusion is that personal bias and the easier option are always factors.

Many countries have higher speeds and lower tolls. In the US where speeds were raised, fatalities rose but not the number of accidents. The accidents were mostly caused by fatigue and weather, not speed.

The only evidence for current police policy is the" faster equals greater harm". The obvious question then becomes how fast is too fast. This should be based on statistics, etc, as MikeL pointed out. However, the gatherers of such info can manipulate the facts to suit their own point of view which is why we have the situation we have now. If the facts stated better roads would lower the toll the gov't can always argue so does going slower, and that is cheaper.

Society has to say enough of this one speed for all roads. Demanding better roads and more speed flexibilityis the answer but, until it is a vote winner/loser issue we're stuck with the cheap easy answers and personal bias we have now.

[SPman]

Whatever happened to Prima Facie speed limits?These were moderately common some time ago but seem to have disappeared into the mists of time....PF speed limits were speed limits that were fixed at the limit in bad weather, conditiions, etc, but you could legally travel faster in good conditions. The onus was on the Police to prove you were travelling at an unsafe speed .....or you to prove it was safe.

Unfortunately, this involves skill, experience and common sense on the part of all involved.........bugger!

[MikeL]

Originally posted by marty
i guess you just have to figure out what risks you are prepared to take. you can only control your own actions, not those of others. don't forget we share the road with some people we wouldn't get into a car with....

That's the main reason why I don't subscribe to the libertarian view, even though philosophically it appeals to me. It will only work if everyone else shares my sense of responsibility. In practice this is impossible. What do I do about the drunk, unlicensed, uninsured, unemployed and destitute driver who slams into me despite all my precautions? It's no use arguing that he must take responsibility for his actions. If the current penalties still don't deter such drivers, it's hard to see how anything else could change their behaviour. Reluctant though some of us may be to admit it, we do need law enforcement (that means Mr Plod) to protect us at least to some extent against such irresponsible actions.

So in principle I accept the necessity for such things as speed limits. But the devil, as they say, is in the detail. There is certainly a lot of scope for more lateral thinking, flexibility and originality than we see emanating currently from the Ministry of Road Revenue.

[mangell6]

DISCLAIMER TO PREVENT FLAMES : This is my own opinion and personal view point not yours.


In days not so long ago some of the 'older' persons on this board, like me, learnt to ride/drive on "sealed" roads, some not so sealed roads, gravel roads and "they call this a road! roads."

We learnt how to recognise road conditions, the roads were usually very windy and you were not able to go 'that fast' (yeah right), we drove/road on vehicles that handled like pigs. We learnt about road conditions, looking out for hazards - Pole cattle on the side of the road at dusk, what to do in a slide (apart from praying) and numerous other "skills", like how to stay awake at 3am when you still have an hour to get home before work.

The issue with ALL of the above comments is that it is not the road or the road conditions or even the speed, the issue is the experience of the driver/rider.

How many people die on the piece of road between the Bombays and Huntly, it is labeled a killer of a road - why?

I have travelled many long distances in cars (and now bikes) and know that that particular piece of road is approximately one hour from a persons house in Auckland/Hamilton. Most people are not used to travelling distances AND concentrating. Travelling at 80+ requires a different concentration level than travelling to the shops and to work, i.e. commuting.

The Canterbury and Hauraki Plains have lots of accidents on their straight roads - people "fall asleep" or are not concentrating (bored with the road).

A lot of riders/drivers do not have the experience to:

- Travel on the open road i.e. above 100km.
- Travel at night
- Travel in "adverse conditions"
- Travel on windy roads (any speed)

And the solution is . . . . . .
Lower the speed limit and gather more revenue!

Of course not, lets spend money on assisting people to gain experience in riding and driving.

For me a defensive driving course/Advanced Rider Training should be compulsory, I have made my daughter go on the Defensive Driving Course - she doesn't have a choice and neither does my son.

The straightening of roads will only increase road accidents, people become "zoned" after driving a long a 'straight' piece of road and pay more attention to what is happening around them than on their driving.

The straightening of the 6km of windy roads at Kaitoke, near Upper Hutt (Wellington), will no longer "slow people down" after they have travelled on a motorway from Wellington and BEFORE they have reached the Rimutaka Hill road. ( Check out the photos the Wkid_One has previously posted on the hill road.)

The first real "corner" that riders/drivers will come across now has a wire fence, with a nice drop off, on one side and a bank on the other. Guess what will be the number one "killer corner" in the Wellington area sometime next year.

In conclusion, until driver/rider training is compulsory, thus enabling them to gain real experience, or some other system that increase peoples experience on the road nothing will really change.

Mike

PS Why can a learner rider only have a 250cc bike but a learner driver can drive a 300hpV8 car?? OR do I need to read the road code again.

[wkid_one]

I have no problems with increasing speeds - this should mean ACC premiums will decrease as most people will be dead and not injured in accidents.

For fucks sake - everybody bloody speeds anyway?

But seriously, my concerns - like lowering the drinking age - where previously it was 20 - and there were 17-18yo in the pub, now it is 18, there are 15-16yo in the pub.

We presently have a speed limit of 100kph - and people think 120-130 is ok - if you up the speed limit - people will just exceed this as well.......

It is better to leave the limit where it is and reduce the zero tolerance to speeding - and focus on driver education, behaviour and responsibility.  You have to cater for the lowest common denominator (read:  Recent Immigrants, learners, old men with hats). Allow the police to provide discretion when faced with speeding and go - well the weather was shit hot, the road is clear, no traffic - just watch your speed son (UTOPIA)

Think of this - the limit is 150kph, you are trucking along quite nicely in your car and rock around a blind corner up the back of a car travelling at 80kph??  NZ roads can't handle an increased speed limit - and neither can NZ drivers.  Having a higher limit is fine - but there will always be people who travel below it - increasing the limit just increases the gap between the slowest (who aren't go to increase speed no matter how hight the limit is) and the fastest - making the roads less safe.

Remember we have lampposts, fences, livestock crossings, ditchs, culverts, telephone polls etc all lining our supposed highways - not really a place to increase the speeding limit - before you can consider this - you need to address the roading issues.  Like removing these hazards, smoothing the roads out.

The other factor is the quality of the cars in NZ - you again have to cater for the lowest common denominator here also - this again goes back to the slowest versus the fastest - whereby the slowest become mobile obstructions if the limit is increased

MY OPINION ALSO

[wkid_one]

Originally posted by mangell6
PS Why can a learner rider only have a 250cc bike but a learner driver can drive a 300hpV8 car?? OR do I need to read the road code again.

Some more permutations of that - why can a learner rider by a hypersport GP road legal Aprilia RS250 - yet not a shitty old 400/600?

It is interesting that for $3-10k - a kid new to motorbiking can go out and buy a bike that will shit on 99% of the cars on the road?

Also - it is quite often safer for them to have a less powerful, roomier, more stable 400-600?

Bring in horsepower rather than cc limits I say.......good to see OZ have revisited theirs and outlawed the RS250 to learners.

[Marmoot]

enghh.....rrr.....I remember a posting in NZ Herald recently.....

If lowering the speed limit reduces road toll, and if government's ultimate aim is zero road toll, then the speed limit should be zero?

I support that.

(either the dumb bees in the hive realize Swain is an idiot, or we end up standing still for the next millenia)