Speeding

[NDORFN]

How about if you concede that there is no evidence to support that you more more likely to die riding at 100km/h than 120km/h? Your trying to say it is okay to speed based on a false pretence.
Now I could believe it if you said its just more fun riding at 120km/h. At least your building a case on something that is more measurable and real.

At the end of the day, the deaths from being "bored shitless" are very low compared to those that involved speed as a contributing factor. I would give you the reference to those accidents, but I doubt you would believe them.
I will grant you that 20km/h over the limit is not a criminal offence. So we don't need to make a huge fuss over it do we?

And if this goes back to the thread about loosing your licence through demerit points about speeding by 20km/h - then that has also been disproven as propaganda. You will not loose your licence by going over the speed limit once by 20km/h.

Basically people have been making up facts to argue that they are correct.

Here's a fact that no one has made up or even mentioned. The ONLY reason the speed limit is 100 and not 120 or 150 or 60 or 5 is because the bureaucrats have decided that it's a socially acceptable cost for x many people to die each year so we can drive at given speed. So rather than look at it in terms of statistics regarding why one set speed is safer than another, look at it in terms of why the fuck are we ok with x many number of people dying at a limit of 100, but not x plus a few more at a limit of 120 etc...

[yachtie10]

Originally Posted by p.dath View Post
How about if you concede that there is no evidence to support that you more more likely to die riding at 100km/h than 120km/h? Your trying to say it is okay to speed based on a false pretence.
Now I could believe it if you said its just more fun riding at 120km/h. At least your building a case on something that is more measurable and real.

At the end of the day, the deaths from being "bored shitless" are very low compared to those that involved speed as a contributing factor. I would give you the reference to those accidents, but I doubt you would believe them.
I will grant you that 20km/h over the limit is not a criminal offence. So we don't need to make a huge fuss over it do we?

And if this goes back to the thread about loosing your licence through demerit points about speeding by 20km/h - then that has also been disproven as propaganda. You will not loose your licence by going over the speed limit once by 20km/h.

Basically people have been making up facts to argue that they are correct.

You say there is "no evidence to support that you more more likely to die riding at 100km/h than 120km/h?"

I think you need to stop reading statistics and taking them as fact. The way they are gathered is pretty flawed so I dont believe most of them anyway.

I think the concept that Morcs is trying to get across is
That if your brain isnt occupied by what you are doing (driving in this case) it tends to wander. This leads to inattention (not being bored shitless) which reduces reaction time and even completely missing events (traffic events).
when we are involved in our driving/riding we tend to be more focused. This leads to less accidents. There is evidence that driving at a speed which involves us in our task we have less accidents (maybe more serious though).

This is not just in driving but in many things we do.
So for some drivers they will have less accidents at 120 than 100 (assuming the machine and road are up to it). In fact it can be much less?

The reason speeding is targeted is because it is easy to enforce and get revenue. wheras being tired, inattentive,an idiot or distracted is hard to prove unless there is an accident.

have a nice day

[doc]

This is part troll, part serious...

The question is:

Are all the people on here who say things like:


Do the crime pay the fine

all that anti speeding nazi crap, well Or do they just like being authoritarians on the internet?

Im intrigued.

Discuss.

Faark, Im as guilty of all the rest myself at times. Can't understand why anyone can winge when they get caught doing any illegal speeds.

ie, 111 kph is not 1 k over its 11 km over. You get caught you face the music.

Put half the lawyers that cause the pc bs out of business overnite. Just my 2c.

[paddy]

You really dont get the point im making do you?
When you sit on the open road at 100kph on easy stretches of road, are you hanging on, scared shitless?

What happens when you watch a really boring film, or read a really boring book? you either do something else to keep the mind stimulated, or you fall asleep.

People like you really are here to try and make KB boring.
Go sit in your Wiki and write articles of how we are supposed to ride.

So, just to paraphrase your argument - you are safer travelling at a higher speed because when you ride more slowly you are bored and therefore "tune out"?

[Ixion]

Here's a fact that no one has made up or even mentioned. The ONLY reason the speed limit is 100 and not 120 or 150 or 60 or 5 is because the bureaucrats have decided that it's a socially acceptable cost for x many people to die each year so we can drive at given speed. So rather than look at it in terms of statistics regarding why one set speed is safer than another, look at it in terms of why the fuck are we ok with x many number of people dying at a limit of 100, but not x plus a few more at a limit of 120 etc...

No, it's not. It was not that logically decided.

Back in the 1920s (1930s ? Can't remember) when the first speed limits were being set, a committee was appointed to decide what they should be. They asked some of the car importers of the day what the top speed of their cars was. Averaged the result , and added 10% (dunno why the 10%, sort of lile our 110kph I guess). The result happened to be 55mph. (Yes, back then many cars couldn't get past 50mph. My first car, a Humber 10, I never got past 45mph. And that was terrifying).

Then in the 70s (?) the big oil crisis struck. And the gubbermint of the day decided to reduce the speed limit to 50mph to save fuel.

A few years later , the oil crisis had passed. And in an unprecedented fit of sanity (never repeated since) the politicians listened to the engineers , who said "We have built these wonderful new motorways. They are capable of much higher speeds in safety , than ordinary roads ". Bear in mind that "ordinary roads" still mainly meant gravel. The politicians actually agreed (Must have been sun spots or something), and agreed to raise the limit on the motorways to 60mph.

Then somehow (I attribute it to divine intervention), they decided that having different speed limits was too much hassle and just raised the limit generally.

Which is why we have 100kph (60mph metrifcateriseded).

Nobody EVER actually thought through what it SHOULD be logically.

[Sidewinder]

wats speed????????????????

[Ixion]

wats speed????????????????

1-phenylpropan-2-amine , C9H13N

[Sidewinder]

1-phenylpropan-2-amine , C9H13N

that maths or something flash?

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Well all know speed doesn't kill... its the sudden stop you have to watch out for...

[Sidewinder]

Well all know speed doesn't kill... its the sudden stop you have to watch out for...

so its going slow that does, buger the ads then yea

[Digitdion]

Fuck, what a great thread. Is it a record getting this many replies in such a short space of time?
For me the thing is speed is really very relative. I drive a coach in and out of Milford. Most people think of a "bus" as slow. But really in most cases I am the quickest and safest driver out of Milford.Modern machinery is awesome.I do not need to brake(excuse the pun) the rules. I can maintain a great average speed A) I know the road. B) I am not a knob from overseas who has no idea about how to judge a corner or is to busy looking at the view or decides to stop on a blind corner to take a photo. I just have to avoid these Knobs.
Boys, its all relative. Some places it is safe to do 140kph. Some places its only safe to do 75kph.
I think you will all agree that the main problem is red tape bullshit! ( I can not spell Burogracy(You know that govt bullshit) I told you I can not spell).

[Sidewinder]

283 on the clock runnie, well leaving the cops behind with a back pack and hung over at 9am after passing out at a mates 21st

[ManDownUnder]

Here's a fact that no one has made up or even mentioned. The ONLY reason the speed limit is ...

...and that ladies and gentlefolks.. is why I love KB.

We know it all. God I love this place

[p.dath]

You say there is "no evidence to support that you more more likely to die riding at 100km/h than 120km/h?"

I think you need to stop reading statistics and taking them as fact. The way they are gathered is pretty flawed so I dont believe most of them anyway.

morcs is the one saying it is a fact. He even put it in big capital letters. I haven't supplied stats - I've just asked for morcs to explain where the fact came from.

I think the concept that Morcs is trying to get across is
That if your brain isnt occupied by what you are doing (driving in this case) it tends to wander. This leads to inattention (not being bored shitless) which reduces reaction time and even completely missing events (traffic events).
when we are involved in our driving/riding we tend to be more focused. This leads to less accidents. There is evidence that driving at a speed which involves us in our task we have less accidents (maybe more serious though).

There's that word again, evidence. Where is the evidence to suggest you will have less accidents travelling at 120km/h as opposed to 100km/h. This sounds more like a guess to me - or are you relying on some statistics from somewhere? However morcs assertion is that you are more likely to die travelling at 100km/h than 120km/h. He even says that it is a fact. Here are the exact words from post #10.
"... gaurenteed more likely to die doing 100kph all the way rather than sitting at 120-140. FACT.".

So I called him on it. Morcs is supporting a viewpoint put forward supported by made up evidence.

So for some drivers they will have less accidents at 120 than 100 (assuming the machine and road are up to it). In fact it can be much less?

I am certain you are right - that there will be some drivers/riders who would have less accidents. So even if we ignore that accident severity will be increased, and that some drivers/riders will be safer, do you put forward then that everyone should just drive/ride above the speed limit then?

In that case, why not just increase the limit? Is there in fact, any point in having a speed limit? Should we just trust road users to use the road at an appropriate speed?

ps. We can't trust all road users to use the road at an appropriate speed. Hence the need for rules and consequences.

The reason speeding is targeted is because it is easy to enforce and get revenue. wheras being tired, inattentive,an idiot or distracted is hard to prove unless there is an accident.

Oh that tired old drum. I'm being targeted because the Government wants to make more revenue - as opposed to the simple explanation that I'm just breaking the law that was put in place to protect the safety of all road users. The fine is simply a deterrent - to deter you from doing it.

If the Government wanted more revenue it would simply increase your tax rate tomorrow.

This perception was stated as one of the reasons they are looking to increase demerit points, and limit fines. So now you'll risk loosing your licence instead of just having a bill to pay - but at least wont wont be able to complain that the Government is revenue collecting.

have a nice day

Always a cordial discussion.

[p.dath]

Fuck, what a great thread. Is it a record getting this many replies in such a short space of time?

morcs did say this was part troll. So all in a but of fun and a little poke.

Taking nothing too seriously.