Unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration

[N4CR]

another lovely loophole with that 'if no one is there then it's not excessive/display etc'

if they were being usual ****y selfs in court if the cop sees you he is watching therefore = display if you contest it.

owned...

for the 10th million time:

1. at the rise of the hand by policeman, stop rapidly. do not pass him
by or
otherwise disrespect him.

2. when a passenger of the foot, hooves in sight, tootel the horn
trumpet
melodiously at first. if he still obstacles your passage, tootel him
with vigor
and express by word of mouth, warning hi, hi.

3. beware of the wandering horse that he shall not take fright as you
pass
him. do not explode the exhaust box at him. go smoothingly by.

[scumdog]

another lovely loophole with that 'if no one is there then it's not excessive/display etc'

if they were being usual ****y selfs in court if the cop sees you he is watching therefore = display if you contest it.

owned...

for the 10th million time:

1. at the rise of the hand by policeman, stop rapidly. do not pass him
by or
otherwise disrespect him.

2. when a passenger of the foot, hooves in sight, tootel the horn
trumpet
melodiously at first. if he still obstacles your passage, tootel him
with vigor
and express by word of mouth, warning hi, hi.

3. beware of the wandering horse that he shall not take fright as you
pass
him. do not explode the exhaust box at him. go smoothingly by.

What about the festive dog and the danger of him 'entanglement with the spokes'?

And the skid demon? eh?

[Mr. Peanut]

Speed camera signs in China.

[N4CR]

what about the festive dog and the danger of him 'entanglement with the spokes'?

and the skid demon? eh?

they are not related to excessive acceleration/exhibition! skid demon might partially be though, sorry i missed that one.

i fabricated 'exhibition of acceleration' story below.

"i exploded the exhaust box while traveling in direction passenger of the foot, with hooves in sight, exhibiting my tootle. i disrespected the policeman at rise of hand and light flashing while making air under wheel in front. skid demon exhaust box explode saved collapse and tie up while creating the escape smoke.
i successfully disentangled passenger of the foot with officer hand warning made a way home without the circular plane flyer of police."

[cooneyr]

You get me wrong, Scumdog. This isn't really the Police's problem; it's the the courts and ultimately the governments.

The Boy Racer act legislation was rammed through Parliament under urgency a couple of years ago. Margaret Wilson (you know, Attorney General) warned the government that the Bill could violate the NZ Bill of Rights. They didn't listen. The problem is the wording of the bill. It contains wishy-washy terminology like "unnecessary", "reasonable grounds", "may have", "believe".

Until such time as the legislation's wording is clarified and objective limits replace subjective definitions, the Police are going to be stuck trying to enforce a set of laws which are deliberately vague, and any enforcement of such is going to make the traffic cops even less unpopular than they already are - if possible.

The Police use the powers they're given. Whilst I believe that enforcement of law should be done with common sense and natural justice as the over-riding principles, it's hardly surprising that legislation like the Boy Racer act get enforced. Cop spots boy racer in vehicle being a bit of a dick. Loud music, raucous voices, etc. No proof or indication that they've done anything wrong, but hey - there was a bit of a drag away from the lights eariler, so let's ping 'em under the good old 'unnecessary acceleration' charge. No proof is needed; the cop has to merely believe the vehicle may have been operated in such a manner.

So, until the legislation is changed to introduce objective limits and to shift the burden of proof where it belongs - the Police - these incidents will keep on happening. The Police need to be given the tools to measure compliance with said limits. And the Police, no matter how unfairly, are going to keep getting the blame.

Going off topic here but if you are going to set upper limits you need lower limits as well (granny at 35kph in a 50kph zone). It seems to me that the police are slowing having their discretion eroded with the likes of the speeding campaign i.e. zero tolerance where as in the "old days" they we made more of a judgment call based on the situation. Specifying upper (and lower) limits for acceleration (that would be fun to monitor) etc etc means there is even less room to move.

I got done for doing 13kph over the speed limit on a set of passing lanes after following a 80kph truck for about 5kms - sense would tell you that passing is safer on passing lanes that along the wiggly bit that it is to difficult to build passing lanes on. If they had done me for +13kph on a different part of the road then so be it but this pissed me off. I dont see it as the copper being a pain rather the current policy being an arse.

It must be damn hard to be a Police man/woman at the moment though with all the lippy shitheads out there who challenge everything and all the shit being flung at the cops at the moment. Understand the intent of the laws and save it for somewhere more appropriate that doesn't piss all the neighbors off - respect those around you (including the police) and life would be sweet. Finally - take some damn personal responsibility for your actions. Society sucks at this - there is too much finger pointing IMHO.

/rant

Cheers R

[swbarnett]

So how would you tell which cars to pull over?

You can't. But once you've pulled the driver over any decent cop can make a pretty accurate judgement as to the state of driver, vehicle and conditions.

My wife was pulled over years ago for doing 150km/h on the Auckland motorway on her CR1000. Before the cop was even out of the patrol car she had taken off her helmet before and laid it on the ground (without getting off the bike). It was pretty obvious to the cop that she knew what she was doing (and showed the cop no disrespect). Add to that a nearly empty road and a bike in obviously good nick and she was let off with a "take it easy" and left to go on her merry way.

All I ask is that we accept that people have brains (cops included) and need to be given a chance to use them. Expect people to be brainless and that's exactly what they will be. Over-regulation for "safety's sake" only encourages people to stop thinking.

[swbarnett]

So the new series of ads. will say : "Slow down, stopping kills"????????


Like nobody makes the association between speed and sudden stops??????

I don't think so Tim.

There is no causal relationship between speed and sudden stops! Speed is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a sudden stop to occur. As I've said before, why do astronauts survive space flight if speed is all that is required? A sudden stop from 100km/h will kill you too. Why is this speed deemed so safe?

[scumdog]

There is no causal between speed and sudden stops! Speed is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a sudden stop to occur. As I've said before, why do astronauts survive space flight if speed is all that is required? A sudden stop from 100km/h will kill you too. Why is this speed deemed so safe?

Sufficient? it is NECESSARY!!!!!

The 100 thing is because most people can mostly handle figuring out where/when it's safe to do a 100 and still stop safely.

Actually that's not true - it's the AVERAGE person, not most.

Bad luck if you're a cretin eh?


130kph speed limit on all NZ roads would kill way too many people = less taxes for the Gubmint.

[swbarnett]

Sufficient? it is NECESSARY!!!!!

If you'd like to reread what I said I agree with you on this point. I said that speed is not "sufficient" but it is "necessary".

The 100 thing is because most people can mostly handle figuring out where/when it's safe to do a 100 and still stop safely.

Actually that's not true - it's the AVERAGE person, not most.

So what you're saying is that a large proportion of our drivers are not capable of driving at 100? Then why do we have a limit at 100? Why not 50? Oh, there's a little old granny that can't handle any more that 30. Trust people to set their own limits and you'll be amazed what they're capable of. If you set too many limits people either zone out or rebel, I suppose I'm in the latter group.

Bad luck if you're a cretin eh?

Finally, someone got my point. Why should the fact that someone else is a cretin mean that I get penalised? If you're not up to scratch then it's you (not you personally) that should be penalised. Don't set arbitrary limits that dumb down the rest of the population. (This applies to all aspects of life. Our education system is a prime example of a failure to show people what they're not good at and hence what they are).

130kph speed limit on all NZ roads would kill way too many people

There seems to be evidence to refute this. If everybody drove at 130 on every road I would agree with you. I don't believe that this would happen. The proof of this is getting caught behind a slow driver on the twisties. Besides, why do we have to have only one open-road limit? Why not a higher on on motorways and main arterials as a compromise?

= less taxes for the Gubmint.

I agree with you here, the Government is definitely motivated by money when it comes to arbitrary limits based on insufficient and probably flawed data.

[scumdog]

If you'd like to reread what I said I agree with you on this point. I said that speed is not "sufficient" but it is "necessary".



So what you're saying is that a large proportion of our drivers are not capable of driving at 100? Then why do we have a limit at 100? Why not 50? Oh, there's a little old granny that can't handle any more that 30. Trust people to set their own limits and you'll be amazed what they're capable of. If you set too many limits people either zone out or rebel, I suppose I'm in the latter group.



Finally, someone got my point. Why should the fact that someone else is a cretin mean that I get penalised? If you're not up to scratch then it's you (not you personally) that should be penalised. Don't set arbitrary limits that dumb down the rest of the population. (This applies to all aspects of life. Our education system is a prime example of a failure to show people what they're not good at and hence what they are).



There seems to be evidence to refute this. If everybody drove at 130 on every road I would agree with you. I don't believe that this would happen. The proof of this is getting caught behind a slow driver on the twisties. Besides, why do we have to have only one open-road limit? Why not a higher on on motorways and main arterials as a compromise?



I agree with you here, the Government is definitely motivated by money when it comes to arbitrary limits based on insufficient and probably flawed data.

The 'average' driver can cope with 100kph - so yeah , a 'large' percentage of the driving (more likely 'can steer a car and stop in time most of the time' drivers) ARE below the standard needed..
It costs more to treat ding-bats injuries than said ding-bat pays in taxes/fines/levies - so YOU pay to support ding-bat and his cretinous driving habits - and the resulting injuries etc..

[NordieBoy]

If you set too many limits people either zone out or rebel, I suppose I'm in the latter group.

A GN250 riding rebel.

[swbarnett]

A GN250 riding rebel.

For the moment. Until 9months ago I'd been in a cage for 13 years. I was nervous as hell about getting back on a bike but knew it was time. Although I'm now well and truly over that fear I've got to save my pennies (my wife is a full time student) before I can get onto something bigger. The GN makes a pretty good commuter though and I'm actually having fun on it for the moment (admittedly mostly around town). It's really nice just to be back on a bike, no matter how big.

[swbarnett]

The 'average' driver can cope with 100kph - so yeah , a 'large' percentage of the driving (more likely 'can steer a car and stop in time most of the time' drivers) ARE below the standard needed..
It costs more to treat ding-bats injuries than said ding-bat pays in taxes/fines/levies - so YOU pay to support ding-bat and his cretinous driving habits - and the resulting injuries etc..

Freedom has a financial cost. If I have to pay more tax to support a free society then so be it. I do believe however that raising speed limits would actually be cheaper financially do to a reduced road toll.

Under the current system if a cretin has an accident but they were under the speed limit etc. (maybe they slid out on an icy road) they are straight back on the road to cause even more carnage. If I had my way every accident would be investigated as is the case for civil aviation and the cretin responsible would be done for losing control (i.e. not driving to the conditions) and probably disqualified. Hang on, don't we already have laws that make this possible? They're called "careless/dangerous driving causing injury/death". Speed limits get in the way of accident investigations because they provide a convenient scape goat.

[scumdog]

[QUOTE=swbarnett;1092372] If I had my way every accident would be investigated as is the case for civil aviation and the cretin responsible would be done for losing control (i.e. not driving to the conditions) and probably disqualified. [QUOTE]


And we do just that in the deep south - but "Johnny-Doogood" feels it's not fair.

"He was only doing 95" - (on a wet road with marginal tyres on a tight bend)

"It had a warrant" - (Yeah, 4 months ago when the tyres were JUST over the minimum)

"He was going to get his 'full' next month" (but he had been riding on his Restricted for the last 18 months - and had done 200km in that time)

"He shouldn't have been disqualified, he was over 20 and blew under the limit" ( even though he had a level of 380 and was just 22 years old at time of crash).

And so it goes.

[swbarnett]

If I had my way every accident would be investigated as is the case for civil aviation and the cretin responsible would be done for losing control (i.e. not driving to the conditions) and probably disqualified.

And we do just that in the deep south.

Glad to hear it!

We've all got our own ideas on what makes for safe driving and no matter what you do you'll always get someone disagreeing with you. That's what makes us human and I'm damn glad we live in a country where just disagreeing is not illegal!

In the examples you gave they were all post accident I assume?

I have no problem with whatever is thrown at me post accident (even though I may feel it's a bit harsh I know there's a mark on the road with my name on it so we can't complain). Pre-accident is another matter entirely. You can't judge the probability of any given driver on any given day causing an accident just by how fast they were going.