Unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration

[swbarnett]

You have a very scary logic... "if you cant prove someone is a danger then let it go..."

Isn't this the guiding principle of "Innocent until PROVEN guilty"?

As for BAIN, he was proved beyond reasonable doubt... but some new things have come up from both sides, which need testing in court. Have a read of the BAIN thread of recent weeks... some VERY interesting points made there which leave me in no doubt whatsoever (way beyond reasonable...) that he is guilty as sin...

I have no opinion on whether Bain is guilty or not. It's not the media's place to try anybody. I agree that he was convicted originally beyond reasonable doubt but this has been overturned so is no longer the case. Yes, he should probably be retried.

[cooneyr]

This is a post well worthy of replying too.

It goes something like this:

Before - Driver is looking for hazards on the road because they there are a lot of them about.

After - Driver believes that all hazards have been removed by laws, stops looking for hazards. Actually only a proportion of hazards have been removed.

If the perception is that a road is "safe" people stop looking for the hazards that are still there.

You are correct for a lot of people and that is the scary thing - however - if you as a person travel over any of the remote rural i.e. Alpine passes in SI or Desert Road (canty plains etc don't count) you learn very quickly that you cannot drive like this without risking a serious problem. I think that motorways, and urban and near rural environments tend to promote this attitude. My wife and I drive the Lewis Pass both ways nearly every month to Nelson and while we know the road very well we also know there are a number of areas where there is potential for ice/grit/snow esp at this time of year.

As an inexperienced long distance driver I tended to assume that the road would be fine the whole way. With 11 years more experience traveling this route and others I have now have the experience to know what type of terrain is fast and flowing and what type of terrain needs more attention. We have seen many "boy racers" (term used loosely) on the Lewis and it is painfully obvious that they have no high speed experience either that they drive far to fast for the traffic and road conditions or have no confidence at high speeds. I seriously believe that a huge percentage (85+%) of drivers would gain a lot of experience by simply driving over a remote rural road a a dozen times a year during for a couple of years. How much the road condition and traffic conditions can change is scary to the ignorant.

A lot of the time the set limit is sensible for the circumstances under which it is applied. With speed limits, however, the limit is often grossly inappropriate. Sometimes higher speeds are just as safe, other times lower speeds are called for. By setting an arbitrary limit that has at best only a thin basis in logic you're telling people not to think because common sense doesn't tally with the law.

Not taking account of the temporary speed limits the only legally recognised (legislated) speed limits are 40, 50, 60, 70 (although on the way out), 80 and 100 kph. What is more important however is the strict process that engineers working for councils (yes engineers set the limits not the Cops) must go through to determine the appropriate limits. The process are set by LTNZ by the way. The processes basically take into account the potential for hazards to appear on the road. The limits don't normally take into account the road surfacing - that is left to the driver or temporary limits during construction. Below is a very rough summary of the speed limit rules.

Simply put 40kph is the is the "new" school zone limit

50kph is any urban street that is not median divided in which case it is 60kph. The 60kph limit generally feels to low (most median devided roads tend to run closer to 10kph high - 70kph) but in reality there is still over 50% (side adjacent to property and turn bays in median) of the hazard potential of a 50kph road which would tend to run 5kph high - 55kph).

Not going to talk about 70 as not so relevant any more.

80kph is difficult to apply. It is typically used where the number of hazards per km (i.e. driveway entrances etc) drops below a threshhold i.e. it tends to appear on the outskirts of towns in lower density development areas.

100 kph is applied where none of the rest are necessary.

In all cases there is a compromise between the potential for an unseen hazard and the distance needed to stop (obviously related to speed) and wanting to have reduced travel times. The speed limits below 100kph have less to do with the interactions between moving traffic and much more to do with the potential for a hazard to appear from the side of the road.

So saying that the speed limits are illogically set is complete and utter bollocks. There has been a hugh amount of work put into the process and there a strict guidelines in place to administer the application of a limit. Many people just do not see the hazards.

Lastly though there is a lot of history around the country granted there are a few locations where Councils have failed to get off their butts and update the speed limits for the new activity levels.

Cheers R

[spudchucka]

It goes something like this:

Before - Driver is looking for hazards on the road because they there are a lot of them about.

After - Driver believes that all hazards have been removed by laws, stops looking for hazards. Actually only a proportion of hazards have been removed.

I've never met anyone quite that stupid. However, if they do exist its just a matter of time before their own stupidity kills them, be it on the road or elsewhere.

[Biff]

It goes something like this:

The logic you use has been used on here, and the wider world for eons. And it's a very simplistic and idealistic viewpoint IMO. In reality you are different to me, you will act differently to different circumstances, and you will travel at a different speed to me on certain stretched of roads.

What you're purporting to promote here is driving Nervana - it simply doesn't exist in the real world. In a perfect world - sure. But at the risk of offending you, I think you're being somewhat naive in lumping every person in the world together in the same group, believing that we all act in the same way to a given set of circumstances, while the fact is we don't. As such arbitrary limits have to be imposed on all of us for the greater good of the masses. And blaming the enforcement, and indeed the creation of legislation on the grounds of some sort of political agenda whiffs of paranoia from where I'm sitting. Or maybe it's the Thai curry I had last night?

In my world - I'm happy that there are enforced limits to the speeds some of the idiots around me drive, and restrictions on peoples actions as a whole. I for one feel a little safer knowing that Mr/Ms Policeperson is keeping an eye on my wife and kids, ensuring that anyone who exceeds the acceptable limits (acceptable to the majority) is dealt with in the appropriate manner.

That's my 6c for this topic (a guy named Alan something, he heads an organization lobbying for the abolition of speed limits I think, posted views similar to yours in the general biker section last year, or the year before, sometime, before this section existed, and he got a right royal kick-in for his efforts courtesy of the KB masses).

[cooneyr]

......... I think you're being somewhat naive in lumping every person in the world together in the same group, believing that we all act in the same way to a given set of circumstances, while the fact is we don't. As such arbitrary limits have to be imposed on all of us for the greater good of the masses......

Firstly the limits are not arbitrary! Reaction times, braking distances plus probability of potential hazards are all very real and have been considered long and hard (along with other matters) in the development of speed limits. Sounds stupid but the average reaction time of Joe Blogs driving home from work (i.e. not in amped up fanging is mode) is around 2 seconds. Thats a lot of meters even at 50kph - 27.8m to be exact. No you cant test this on you way home tonight. If you try you will be ready for the hazard and have a shorter reaction time and if you are not ready for it you wont measure the time.

The whole thing with engineering is "for the greater good". Yes "you" (whomever that is) might be Casey Stoner (screw the "doc") on a shiny fandangle bike but you are not one of the "masses". There will always be the a spectrum of abilities so limits/laws/designs etc etc have to be for the masses.

In a "perfect" world we wouldn't have idiots, intersections, corners, chipseal, broken bones, road rash etc etc etc but that would be boring as hell and impossible to achieve. Think of the opposite to every one of "your" arguments then reach a compromise based on scientific fact and general society's views and live with it.

Cheers R

P.S. not attacking anyone in particular, just don't assume that shit is made up by the pollys or cops cause they feel like it. The whole lot is a mix of scientific fact, probability, engineering (which means best result per dollar spend these days), and political will. On top of that the Police are there to enforce the rules and cop (no pun intended) all the flack for doing their jobs.

[swbarnett]

You are correct for a lot of people and that is the scary thing - however - if you as a person travel over any of the remote rural i.e. Alpine passes in SI or Desert Road (canty plains etc don't count) you learn very quickly that you cannot drive like this without risking a serious problem. I think that motorways, and urban and near rural environments tend to promote this attitude. My wife and I drive the Lewis Pass both ways nearly every month to Nelson and while we know the road very well we also know there are a number of areas where there is potential for ice/grit/snow esp at this time of year.

It looks like there is a regional difference here. My experience of both drivers and roads is mainly in and around Auckland (although I have driven the roads you speak of - but not in winter). Indeed, the more hazardous the road in the first place the less this will apply.

I seriously believe that a huge percentage (85+%) of drivers would gain a lot of experience by simply driving over a remote rural road a a dozen times a year during for a couple of years. How much the road condition and traffic conditions can change is scary to the ignorant.

Sounds like a damn good idea!

So saying that the speed limits are illogically set is complete and utter bollocks.

Setting the same speed limit for a tight blind corner on a one lane country road and a clear, wide motorway does not seem logical to me. The limits are set for the lowest common denominator, we need to recognise that not everyone is that dumb. If we must have a limit then treat each and every infringement according to the merits of the individual incident.

limits/laws/designs etc etc have to be for the masses.

So again the minority loses out because the powers that be can't distinguish them from the masses.

On top of that the Police are there to enforce the rules and cop (no pun intended) all the flack for doing their jobs.

Yes, this needs to be made clear. I for one have no problem with the individual cop on the street - their hands are tied most of the time.

[cooneyr]

Can you tell I'm bored at work today?

It looks like there is a regional difference here. My experience of both drivers and roads is mainly in and around Auckland (although I have driven the roads you speak of - but not in winter). Indeed, the more hazardous the road in the first place the less this will apply.

Your regional difference is what I was politely referring to with the motorway vs remote rural roads. Again, I think living in a urban environment tends to build complancy when it should be doing exactly the opposite. This includes motorways which are a kind of artificial environment in NZ given the relative lack of them.

Setting the same speed limit for a tight blind corner on a one lane country road and a clear, wide motorway does not seem logical to me. The limits are set for the lowest common denominator, we need to recognise that not everyone is that dumb. If we must have a limit then treat each and every infringement according to the merits of the individual incident.

Ever seen those yellow diamond shaped signs with a curved arrow and a yellow square below it with black numbers on it? Curve adversary signs - to indicate where there could be trouble negotiating a curve. Generally set so that the cornering speed equates to about 0.2g given that these signs are generally only for certain speeds as well. 0.2g is a "comfortable" speed but is doesn't take long to figure out how fast you can really go around a corner of that speed (+20kph in a car maybe). These advisory speeds are not enforceable and would only be mentioned if you get done for dangerous driving etc if you happened to fall off. If a there is a sign missing/needed at a particular corner get onto the Council or Transit about getting it fixed or replaced. Otherwise if you see the shithead stealing one let them know how they might be putting their girlfriends mother in danger.

As for motorways, given the potential for falling lumps of concrete are you sure you want to go faster? We went for a 5 day drive around england and I tell you the speed differential on some of the motorways was scary as shit. You could be screaming along at 80mph (+10 over the the limit on a divided carriageway) then come up upon a truck struggling to do 60mph and go to overtake only to notice a car doing 100+mph coming up behind you. It was fun but I'm really not sure it is worth the potential carnage. Besides all of which when we did get off onto A roads (similar to our two lane State Highways in NZ) they all drove like Nanas cause it was tight and you actually had to drive around a corner. I'd much rather have less motorways and better drivers than lots of motorways with shit drivers doing 80+ mph who become 45mph Nanas when the road finally becomes really fun. You cant really call riding/drive fast or fun till you get to a corner (a real one mind - not one of the 120kph+ design speed ones you get on motorways).

So again the minority loses out because the powers that be can't distinguish them from the masses.

And how do we distinguish good drivers from bad? First problem, whatever driving test you develop it will not be in the real world less you kill somebody. Second problem, do you want/going to wear/display some sort of identification that says "I'm a shit driver". How long till a certain part of society starts obtaining the "good drivers" identification rather than "I'm a shit driver watch out for me" identification.

Just about every bit of legislation is a compromise. Laws might suck if you are a "good" driver, perfect citizen etc but where do you draw the line?

Cheers R

[swbarnett]

In reality you are different to me, you will act differently to different circumstances

I agree that we are all different to a degree. The situation is complex but to a certain level we are all human and as such we share a common set of mechanisms inside the brain. On a subconscious level we tend to act in similar ways.

What you're purporting to promote here is driving Nervana - it simply doesn't exist in the real world. In a perfect world - sure. But at the risk of offending you, I think you're being somewhat naive in lumping every person in the world together in the same group, believing that we all act in the same way to a given set of circumstances, while the fact is we don't.

No offence taken. It's good to share opinions.

Actually, I've driven in a country that has the situation I'm promoting. They do have speed limits but the only cop I ever saw on the road in two years was escorting a house removal. They're used as a guideline more than a hard and fast rule. The lowest common denominator choose not to drive because of an excellent public transport system. Also, the population is taught critical thinking at school so they're better equipped when they do drive.

Can you tell I'm bored at work today?

I know what you mean. I, unfortunately have some work that I must do. I'll digest what you've said and get back to you later. Thanks for a lively debate. The world would be boring indeed if we all agreed. Spot you later...

[Sanx]

Long rambling post warning!

I've sat here and watched this thread evolve (for want of a better word) and considered some of the various arguments that have been bandied about. Most of the arguments have been high on emotive terms and massively lacking in any form of evidence and research. Let's take a few examples:

More traffic laws mean fewer people actively think for themselves.

To some extent this is true. Take the ever-present issues of speed limits, for example. In many western countries, road engineers set speed limits in accordance with what's known as the 85th precentile rule. This rule accepts that a proportion of drivers will speed regardless of what limit's in place. To test this, road engineers in the UK progressively lowered the speed limit on a section of road: 70mph, 60mph, 50mph, 40mph and 30mph. They then measured the speed of each car going along the road. As with any statistical spread, the results formed a bell graph. There was a massive peak around the speed limit and a progressively diminishing number either side.

As the speed limit was lowered, the number of people who routinely ignored it increased. When more than 15% of the traffic ignored it, they found the average speed on the road went up. The peak on the bell graph shifted above the lower speed limit, with a much wider distribution of speeds than before. Essentially, drivers looked at the speed limit and obeyed it - but only to a point. Where the majority of drivers felt the limit was unreasonable, they ignored it. So now, engineers do consider hidden risk factors when setting speed limits, however, they monitor the traffic flow afterwards. When the limit has been set too low, they find that they can reduce the average speed on the road in question by raising the limit to the next increment.

Too low a speed makes people complacent

True, according to research carried out in Canada and empirical evidence from the USA. The USA is one of the few western countries in recent years that has increased speed limits. In 1995, the federal highway limit of 55moh was removed and the power to set maximum limits devolved to the individual states. Despite huge opposition from various road-safety (i.e. anti-speed) lobby groups, some states raised the highway limit by up to 30mph.

In the intervening twelve years, what's become evident is that there has been a marked decrease in KSI (killed and seriously injured) accidents in those states that have increased their limits, and that the decrease is directly proportional to the amount by which the limit was increased.

The Canadian research supports this evidence. The researchers asked a number of drivers to drive a simulator along a motorway class highway first at a speed that the drivers themselves chose (remember they weren't going from A to B, they were driving for a set period of time so there was no incentive to go faster) and then at a number of set speeds for a reasonable period of time (an hour per speed). They monitored eye movement, brain function and occasionally through a simulated emergency hazard into the equation for good measure. Their findings illustrated that each driver has a speed at which he or she feels comfortable at. At that speed, the driver is alert but not frightened and reacts well to unexpected events. In those drivers that had a high comfortable speed, the brain activity and eye movements decreased proprtionally to the amount under their comfortable speed they were asked to drive at. Their reaction times proportionally increased. Basically, the drivers were awake but no longer fully alert. The act of driving was no longer interesting or challenging; they were bored, easily distracted and got tired a lot faster. Once these drivers speeded up, things returned to normal.

A driver who believes that all hazards have been removed by laws, stops looking for hazards

Again, partially true. There is a small town in Holland that has done away with traffic lights. The experiment, called "Shared Space", was to encourage pedestrians, cyclists and motorists to co-exist happily and more easily. The architect of the experiment, a traffic planned by the name of Hans Monderman, explained:

"It works well because it is dangerous, which is exactly what we want. But it shifts the emphasis away from the Government taking the risk, to the driver being responsible for his or her own risk."

The citizens of the town have voted the experiment a success, back up by accident statistics. Accidents have gone down overall, with fewer serious incidents compared to minor dings. And there hasn't been one death since the experiment started seven years ago. Drivers have reported that they've slowed down, but there are fewer jams and they can get around the town faster than before.

The same principle can be applied to other items of traffic furniture. When a warning item or dangeer sign becomes too common, without drivers seeing a perceived need for it, they become ignored. How many 30kph limits do we see around Auckland where there's no work going on, no obvious hazard and in some cases, absolutely no evidence of any work having gone on. Because they're so commonplace and so over-used, people just ignore them, including those times when they're actually justified. If the signs were only used where there was obvious risk, and removed the moment that risk was removed (i.e. when the workmen pack up for the night), it's likely that more people would heed them.

The same applies to stop signs. If only junctions that actually needed a stop sign had them, people would take more notice of them. Consider the thought process: "It's a stop sign, like the last fifteen junctions where a mere give way sign would have done." compared to "It's a stop sign. Haven't seen one of those in a while. Better stop". OK, maybe a little simplistic, but the theory behind it is sound and has evidential backing.

Speed kills

I thought I'd save the best till last. When people - especially governments, Police and road safety bodies - talk about speed and speeding they are often rather vague as to which meaning of the word 'speeding' they're referring to. The uneducated (government ministers, mainly) fail to realise there even is more than one meaning. The LTSA, although aware of both meanings of the word, conveniently lump the two together for statistical purposes though they do declare each meaning:

• Inappropriate Speed - Travelling too fast for the conditions
• Excess speed - travelling faster than the posted speed limit

Travelling too fast for the conditions is inherently dangerous. Travelling faster than the speed limit, provided the speed is suitable for the conditions, is not. Car magazines, when measuring the performance of different models, often refer to the 80-120 acceleration test as the TED test, or Time Exposed to Danger. This test is meant to give an indication of the time it takes to overtake a slower-moving vehicle. Simple physics dictates that if the slower vehicle is travelling at 80kph, overtaking with a 40kph speed differential means that you're on the wrong side of the road for less time than if you overtake with a 20kph speed differential.

Various advanced driving and riding courses, such as the Institute of Advanced Motoring courses in the UK (mainly run by serving traffic cops) instruct their pupils to overtake safely by exceeding the speed limit in force for the duration of the overtaking manouver. For example, if you're travelling at 100kph and come across a vehicle travelling at 80kph, the safe way to overtake is to pass the vehicle at 120kph, and then drop your speed back down to 100kph once the overtaking manouver is finished. This minimises your Time Exposed to Danger, and the risk overtaking presents to you, the vehicle you're overtaking and any other vehicles that might be in the vicinity.

The faster one travels, the more chance that any accident you have will kill you. That's undisputed. However, there is absolutely no statistical evidence to suggest that the faster one travels, the more likely you are to have an accident. Governments have been claiming this for years, but there isn't a single bit of credible research to back up that claim. In fact, there's a reasonable amount of evidence to suggest the claim is false.

Look at the NZ road toll, for instance. Since 1995, the average open road speed has dropped by around 4.5kph. The LTSA claim that for every 1kph reduction in average open road speed, we can expect a 4% reduction in fatal crashes. Unfortunately, according the the LTSA, the Police Traffic Crash Report from was modified in 2001 which renders data collected prior to 2001 not strictly comparable with data recorded since. So - if we look at the 2001 to 2005 period (all of this based upon the LTSA's own figures) mean road speed dropped from 100.2kph to 97.1kph. That's a 3.1kph drop over four years. In the same period, fatal crashes have numbered (starting in 2001): 455, 405, 461, 435, 405. Overall, there's a small trend down, but it isn't the 12% we're told to expect. The trend could equally be explained by the increase in safety in cars; better crash protection, ABS being more prevalent, airbags, etc. Hardly conclusive, it is?

So:

In conclusion, the best thing for road safety in NZ would be to stop concentrating on the lowest common denominator, re-focus policing on preventing bad driving and allowing officers to exercise common sense when witnessing cases of speeding (the overtaking scenario, for instance) and improve the quality of the roads and road surfaces.

[Patrick]

100 years ago the roads and vehicles were a lot worse than today but the drivers thought for themselves and may well have been better.

What I'm trying to say is that if you treat people like idiots that's what you'll get. You have to temper restrictions so that they still allow drivers to use their brains. If a law is too restrictive and leaves no room for common sense (or defies common sense) people will stop thinking, zone out and become worse drivers as a result.

Soooo....... you want roads without laws and enforcement, right?

It goes something like this:

Before - Driver is looking for hazards on the road because they there are a lot of them about.

After - Driver believes that all hazards have been removed by laws, stops looking for hazards. Actually only a proportion of hazards have been removed.

If the perception is that a road is "safe" people stop looking for the hazards that are still there.

Sooo... you're saying people think the roads are safe, so they stop looking? Or just stop looking for motorbikes???? You're loosing me....

A lot of the time the set limit is sensible for the circumstances under which it is applied. With speed limits, however, the limit is often grossly inappropriate. Sometimes higher speeds are just as safe, other times lower speeds are called for. By setting an arbitrary limit that has at best only a thin basis in logic you're telling people not to think because common sense doesn't tally with the law.

The limit is 100kmph. Some will still do this 100kmph in snow and whiteout conditions with 10 metres of visibility, or still follow right up your date while it is pouring with rain... the rules state that this is stupid, but many still do it. Limits do need to be in place or we are all toast.

In practice, however, most laws are put in place to meet a political agenda.

Now this is just bizarre... most laws are to protect people, from others (and themselves...)

[QUOTE=cooneyr;1096814] I seriously believe that a huge percentage (85+%) of drivers would gain a lot of experience by simply driving over a remote rural road a a dozen times a year during for a couple of years. How much the road condition and traffic conditions can change is scary to the ignorant.

Good call... and how about compulsory motorbike licence before car licence to make drivers more aware of what goes on around them too..!!!!!

[swbarnett]

Soooo....... you want roads without laws and enforcement, right?

No, just common sense ones.

[swbarnett]

Long rambling post warning!

I've sat here and watched this thread evolve (for want of a better word) and considered some of the various arguments that have been bandied about. Most of the arguments have been high on emotive terms and massively lacking in any form of evidence and research. Let's take a few examples:

Thank you, thank you, thank you

You've managed to drag what was fast becoming an emotive argument (I know my objectivity was starting to wane) back to one of clear-headed logic.

What you've said has summarised the salient points of what I've been trying to say in a way I was finding difficult to master.

To the masses in general: I stand by what I have said but please take it with a small grain of salt as the context may not have always been clear. The most important thing in life to me is my personal freedoms and those of others. I would sacrifice a lot to maintain or regain those freedoms (including my own sense of safety to a large degree). Safety for it's own sake is overrated.

[scumdog]

Hmmm, read all the above posts by various people.
Points I felt may not have been considerd:

Those places with higher speed limits than us (US, Britain etc) tend to have more suitable roads for this than than NZ.

The mention of removing Stop/Give Way signs would work - eventually after a lot of carnage. I have seen on more than one occassion people driving right through both types of intersection without even slowing down, their reason? "Oh, I thought I had the right of way" (WTF it's a STOP sign) and "I didn't see the Give Way sign" (WTF they just drove through it going one way and were returning back through the same intersection).

Speeding: "I have a modern car with good brakes and stuff and I hold a Motorsports licence and I'm a good driver (sez who?) so I don't see why ishould drive at the same speed as people with old cars that can't drive"
Just one of the fancy 'reasons' given by people who think that speed restrictions shouldn't apply to them - but SHOULD apply to 'everybody else'.

These are some of the types of people that those advocating higher speed limits, less restrictions etc are willing to share the roads with?

At the end of the day there is no bozo test, no way of indicating whether somebody IS a bozo (barring their driving abilities) so the law figures at least 50% of the population is in the bozo catagory and makes laws inthat respect.

Somewhere in KB land (and NZ) are bozos for who the laws are too easy, allowing them to outdrive their capabilities.

[Patrick]

No, just common sense ones.

Yeah, fair call, but there are too few people out there with common sense any more. That is the problem.

[cooneyr]

Long rambling post warning!

Whoa no kidding. I agree with a lot of what you have said and it is entirely correct for the context in which it applies however some of points of clarification needed

Too low a speed makes people complacent

Your discussion regarding drivers and their preferred speeds is entirely true, however the road environment needs to be taken into context. Freeways and motorways provide a very consistent road environment (unless they get traffic jams a la Auckland but thats another story). The problem in NZ is that by far the biggest proportion of our roading is two lane roads. In rural situations there is a very real potential for there to be cow, tractor, tight bend, ice grit etc so the road environment is not consistent. This means until you are an experienced driver many do not realise that the desired speed needs to change with the environment. I therefore believe that it would be in appropriate to do a blanket lift in speed for all rural roads but then again too many limit changes would again breed complacency.

Again, partially true. There is a small town in Holland that has done away with traffic lights.

What they have done in this small town is awesome, however, it would not work in cities like Auckland or Chch. This is because congestion would become too much of an issues. We have though about this at work and think that the best way to apply this concept would be in cells or residential areas. By this I mean there would need to be extremely good arterial roads providing to travel between the areas with no controls. This surprisingly screams of the rooms and corridors approach that was developed in the 1960s but never really put into practice in NZ. There is a recent push towards this approach through hierarchy planning but it will take a loooong time to implement fully.

In conclusion, the best thing for road safety in NZ would be to stop concentrating on the lowest common denominator, re-focus policing on preventing bad driving and allowing officers to exercise common sense when witnessing cases of speeding (the overtaking scenario, for instance) and improve the quality of the roads and road surfaces.

Now this I completely and whole heartedly agree with. Stop targeting the non disputable easily targetable revenue raising offences and start policing again. This is a policy decision though not the cops so dont give them a hard time about it.

Cheers R