Latest anti-speed ad

**wbks** · 6th March 2009, 17:03

The point was most people pretty much never go over 110-120, but they do constantly cruse at 110.

**MSTRS:Me** · 6th March 2009, 17:18

Originally Posted by wbks

The point was most people pretty much never go over 110-120, but they do constantly cruse at 110.

Not round here, they don't. 85 to 90 is about it. Bastards. They cause a lot of frustration because it is exceedingly difficult to pass them.
And the talk of speeds 200+ isn't relevant - there is no way that those speeds can be done without HUGE risk. But no-one will ever convince me that 110 (or 120) is dangerous on, say, the Rangitikei plains between Taupo and Napier. Unless of course it's foggy or something...

**Forest** · 6th March 2009, 17:57

I just checked the plates.co.nz website.

2QK4U

This Premium plate has already been snapped up, so have another go and try again.

**Gubb** · 6th March 2009, 18:40

Don't say Sorry to me. Say Sorry to his kids!

**zzzbang** · 6th March 2009, 21:09

how is it that technology is always improving but the speedlimit stays the same over all these years? can it really be that the average person cant handle anything over 100km/h? "my brains are confussed by the quickened moving objects"?

**zzzbang** · 6th March 2009, 21:14

Originally Posted by phoenixgtr

Personally, I try to separate myself from this attitude.

good on you, i try to do the same, but usually when you show some courtesy towards other drivers they shove it in your face and just behave like fools anyway.

**spudchucka** · 6th March 2009, 21:32

Originally Posted by MSTRS

Just heard a new one on the radio. Goes something like...
Dad always drives pretty fast, so we got him the perfect plate 2QK4U. Then we got a call from the cops. They'd found him dead, wrapped around a tree. They said he'd been doing 110kph. It's true what they say about the bigger mess.

110kph? No reference to sort of road.
WHAT A CROCK OF SHIT!!!

There should be some law against trees.

**James Deuce** · 6th March 2009, 21:57

Originally Posted by zzzbang

how is it that technology is always improving but the speedlimit stays the same over all these years? can it really be that the average person cant handle anything over 100km/h? "my brains are confussed by the quickened moving objects"?

The average person can't handle anything over 12 km/hr. Go faster than that and you are in planning mode. You're not built to deal with stuff faster than that while retaining the ability to react instantly and consistently.

Yes, your brain is confused and it starts leaving things out. That's why people pull out in front of trains and bikes.

**zzzbang** · 6th March 2009, 22:24

Originally Posted by James Deuce

The average person can't handle anything over 12 km/hr. Go faster than that and you are in planning mode. You're not built to deal with stuff faster than that while retaining the ability to react instantly and consistently.

Yes, your brain is confused and it starts leaving things out. That's why people pull out in front of trains and bikes.

i guess its a good explanation. but, what i was thinking is that as technology improves you require less reaction time to correct your mistakes without causing an incident, also since there is better technology it is to a degree reasonable to assume you will be traveling at a lesser risk than before (more stable and reliable vehicles e.x.). so, holding all other variables constant, with an increasing level of technology the speed limit could be raised without increasing incidents (thats assuming your actually paying attention to your surroundings) ... but i guess theres alot of other influencing factors so making a conclusion like this wouldnt be plausible without looking a little closer.

other considerations: what is the acceptable level of incidents? and what is the minimum speed that we find acceptable to travel at? (at 12km/h we would be going nowhere fast with an assumed zero incident rate)

being human with all its morals and ethics and socially acceptable levels.. sigh

**Grahameeboy** · 7th March 2009, 11:50

Originally Posted by Jantar

But if you have your lights on high beam there's a very good chance that the driver doesn't know you are there.

Dipshit makes a good point about the road code forbidding the use of high beam when near other vehicles, and the reason for that is because high beam masks everything in the eyes of the driver who tries to look at it.

I accept you have a valid point...cannot argue but the road code is a guide and there is plenty to show that it is safer...iny miny miny mo

**MSTRS:Me** · 7th March 2009, 11:57

Originally Posted by Grahameeboy

I accept you have a valid point...cannot argue but the road code is a guide and there is plenty to show that it is safer...iny miny miny mo

Nope. The road code is more than a guide. It is the law/s. I accept that some of it may not be the safest for bikes, but you takes your chances with a ticket as opposed to being 'right' but dead. If everyone followed the letter of the law, all would be well. But they don't.

**Ixion** · 7th March 2009, 12:06

Dad always drives pretty fast, so we got him the perfect plate 2QK4U. Then we got a call from the cops. They'd found him dead, wrapped around a tree. They said he'd been doing 110kph. It's true what they say about the bigger mess.

I don't see the relevance. I have EXACTLY the same problem with trees every time I try going off road. The bloody things jump out in front of you. Impossible to avoid them even at 30 kph , let alone 110. I reckon the tree should be charged with manslaughter.

**Dave Lobster** · 7th March 2009, 12:11

Originally Posted by Ixion

I reckon the tree should be charged with manslaughter.

Had the rabble have won the election, that would have been a distinct possibility!!

**Max Preload** · 7th March 2009, 14:41

Originally Posted by Grahameeboy

I accept you have a valid point...cannot argue but the road code is a guide and there is plenty to show that it is safer...iny miny miny mo

The 'Road Code' is a guide to the regulations, and the regulations clearly state:

Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 (SR 2004/427) (as at 01 August 2008)

8.3 Use of motor vehicle lighting equipment on road
(1) A person must not use vehicle lighting equipment in such a way that it dazzles, confuses, or distracts so as to endanger the safety of other road users.
(2) If a vehicle's headlamps are in use, a driver must dip those headlamps—
(a) whenever they would be likely to interfere adversely with the vision of another driver in motion on a road

You surely can't argue that a main-beam in the eyes at any time doesn't do exactly that. So not only is stupid, it is also a $150 infringement offence ($1000 maximum on summary conviction).