Average speeds dropping, yet road toll increasing

[CookMySock]

[it's] just a carryover from when the speed limit was 60mph

Wuz it?

I don't recall the speed limit being 60mph. I thought it was 50mph, and I remember feeling surprised when they "put the speed limit up" to 100km/hr.

I think mostly 100k is plenty quick enough. There might be some places where the speed limit might be raised under some circumstances (clear road, no traffic, few corners) but I think our roading and legal system is just not geared to cater for that. Basically, there are too many systems to overhaul to make it feasible.

I purposely ride a bike with bumpy suspension with loads of feedback. Theres no need to smooth it out - if I do that then I just need to travel faster to get the same buzz.. why bother?

I'm happy to clatter along at 100-110k. If the limit was raised to 120 I'd utilise the new speed, but I'd have to think more (thats bad lol).

Steve

[davebullet]

Faster, but safer? That's unpossible!
Surely if that was true the government would put their efforts into making people better drivers irather than just penalizing the people that go faster than the limit?
A Government that just tickets the speeders and puts little effort into whatever might be needed to improve the standards of driving would be one hell of a lousy Government . . . oh, wait . . .

One of the silliest things in my opinion is when someone gains more than 100 demerit points - they just take the license away for 3 months, how does that help anything? I would rather see something sensible like >100 demerit points => compulsory advanced driver training course. I would also like to see demerit points not given out for exceeding the speed limit, but given out for bad driving. i.e. 'ello 'ello 'ello - I noticed you driving like a fuckwit - here's a ticket for 20 demerit points and a $200 fine, in future try to drive like someone with a brain please, have a nice day!

I think my idea would have a better chance of improving road safety than the current system.
Also - fiddling with the radio while driving = demerit points. When someone is out in public hurtling along at 100kph in 1.5 tonnes of glass & steel I think it would be a good idea for them to pay attention to controlling the vehicle and looking ahead - less chance of them killing someone then.

Ok - so going 200kph isn't safer than 100kph. Being exposed to danger whilst overtaking I believe can justify the temporary breaking of the limit.

The government puts their efforts into what is cost effective to enforce... Not what is best. Best implies a lot of cost. Because you have separate government departments, I don't see why ACC and Land transport are incentivised to work together. Maybe there are schemes / plans in place to improve driver / rider skills and training and thereby reduce accidents. But which of those 2 departments will pay for the cost? LTSA pays for the training, and ACC reaps the benefits. I don't think so says LTSA minister.

I agree with you about fines. The only benefit is it makes your bike more fuel efficient because your wallet is lighter. Fines do nothing to curb / correct the behaviour that lead to the fine.

[MSTRS:Me]

I believe the 'old' limit was 55mph, dropped briefly to 50mph when the first gas crisis bit in the 70s, then increased to 60mph. The change to kph saw the limit go to 100kph for simplicity's sake. 100kph=62mph.
At the time, many vehicle speedo needles pointed straight up when at 60mph/100kph, so was easier to check peripherally than the slightly lower 55 being about 91kph.

[MarkH]

I believe the 'old' limit was 55mph, dropped briefly to 50mph when the first gas crisis bit in the 70s, then increased to 60mph. The change to kph saw the limit go to 100kph for simplicity's sake. 100kph=62mph.
At the time, many vehicle speedo needles pointed straight up when at 60mph/100kph, so was easier to check peripherally than the slightly lower 55 being about 91kph.

That doesn't sound right - I clearly remember a speed limit of 80kph in the 1980s. New Zealand changed to metric in 1975.

[george formby]

On the subject of speed, Margaret Thatcher scuppered the European Union's plans of a blanket horse power limit on motorcycles a few decades ago. The reason for the restriction was basically that speed kills so powerful bikes must be dangerous. She engaged British scientist's to find out if this was true before she agreed. Their findings were the opposite, riders of high power motorcycles were far less likely to cause an accident than your average road user because their skill level & observation was far better. Go figure.
Love her or hate her, Margaret Thatcher was a clever cookie, she also opposed catalytic converters way back in 1979 because they increase the amount of Co2 an engine produces.. I read this last bit in a car mag by the way.

[scumdog]

So, speed doesn't kill.

I never thought it did.

Accidents kill. And accidents happen at any speed.

'Accidents' are rarely accidents - crashes caused by inept driving is a more accurate description.

[CookMySock]

That doesn't sound right - I clearly remember a speed limit of 80kph in the 1980s. New Zealand changed to metric in 1975.

Agreed.

Steve

[PeeJay]

http://www.transfund.govt.nz/fascina...-roadtoll.html

interesting factoids
1930... 30mph
1948... 50mph
1949... microwave
1954... First lady traffic cop
1955... wear a helmet over 30mph
1962... 55mph
1969... 60mph
1969... breathtesting
1970... speeding tickets introduced
1973... 843 road deaths
1974... 50mph
1974... compulsory helmets
1975... seatbelts
1985... 100kph
1987... 795 road deaths

They got stuck into speeding, drinkdriving, etc and for the last 25yrs the road toll has steadily trended down.

Posters have gone on about better training as a priority. good idea but it would take years to sort out.
If you introduce a more stringent system for new drivers you will still have the problem of all the existing drivers, probably 50 years for natural attrition to work through us all.
You could have compusory training for existing lisence holders and retesting but failing large numbers of existing drivers would be politically unacceptable.
On the other hand there is no point in testing if you arent going to have a decent standard which would likely result in a significant failure rate.
We really need all this to happen first before thinking about upping the speed limit.
Personally I think raising the speed limit will be way down the list of things to do in the govt Road Safety Initiatives

[PeeJay]

On the subject of speed, Margaret Thatcher scuppered the European Union's plans of a blanket horse power limit on motorcycles a few decades ago. The reason for the restriction was basically that speed kills so powerful bikes must be dangerous. She engaged British scientist's to find out if this was true before she agreed. Their findings were the opposite, riders of high power motorcycles were far less likely to cause an accident than your average road user because their skill level & observation was far better. Go figure.
Love her or hate her, Margaret Thatcher was a clever cookie, she also opposed catalytic converters way back in 1979 because they increase the amount of Co2 an engine produces.. I read this last bit in a car mag by the way.

So it follows that the quick way to decrease accidents and have increased skill levels and observation is for as many people as possible to have a high powered motorcycle?

[HondaSTrider]

So it follows that the quick way to decrease accidents and have increased skill levels and observation is for as many people as possible to have a high powered motorcycle?

or this....

Would have been about the same era when I read, also in a pommie bike mag, about a bike journo bloke who conducted a little experiment on the "SMIDSY" syndrome (Sorry Mate I Didn't See You).
You will have to forgive my failing memory for accuracy, but the figures are indicative only as I can't remember my own birthday at times let alone specific numbers from an article like this!! Wish I could find the article again!

For a set period of time (a fortnight or a month I think), this chappie rode a set route through London to and from work in his normal attire, obeying all relevant laws of the road etc, and he counted the number of infringments on his "right of way" Turned out to be something like 287 or similar.

For a second identical period, he rode the same route, same times of day etc but had his headlight on and a hi-vis vest, again taking note of the number of time his right of way was compromised... 216 or there-a-bouts... a reasonable reduction and obviously worth making the effort.

For the third period he borrowed a white motorcycle with a full fairing, white helmet, black jacket with hi-vis over-vest,... i.e. looking as much like a motorcycle cop as he possibly could. Number of infringments on his right of way over this period?.... something like 37!!!!!

Conclusion..?.... The SMIDSY excuse is total BS! What the average cage-clad punter fails to respond to as far as motorcycles go is a threat! Plain and simple... Once he sees a threat of any kind, eg PLOD! he reacts to it alright! Even if said ploddy type is only on two wheels! Failure to behave correctly will hurt and so driving behavior improves markedly.

I really regret throwing that mag out once I had finished with it because it would be great to have the exact figures to produce for you but you get the gist...
Education MUST be improved in the early stages of a motorists career, and as was suggested earlier, defensive driving / training courses instead of demerit points would also help IMHO.

I have long been a fan of "everyone" must spend 6 months to a year on a motorbike before they are elligible to apply for a car license anyway. That way, they learn a bit of traffic/road-reading skills or Darwins theory takes them out of the equation and the ones that do survive but couldn't even cope on a lightweight and highly manoueverable piece of machinery would never get to be incharge of tonnes of high velocity bike-buggering tin-tops!

[PeeJay]

Exactly. I used to own an ex MOT BMW, white but no lred&blues, lane splitting was a breeze

[quickbuck]

For the third period he borrowed a white motorcycle with a full fairing, white helmet, black jacket with hi-vis over-vest,... i.e. looking as much like a motorcycle cop as he possibly could. Number of infringments on his right of way over this period?.... something like 37!!!!!

Interesting.... And confirms what I have suspected for a while.....
Yes, it is all about the perceived threat.

So, I'm going to paint my CBR Pearl White.... At least it is a 2009 Honda Colour.... Oh, and save up for a White VFR800
I have said it before on here, i think....
I was in a van with 3 other motorcyclists, and we were turning right into a side street.
There was a bit of room between us and an oncoming Kenworth Rig, but the driver gave way to him anyway... Really he would have made it easily.
The comment made was, " Best not take him on, not worth the risk".

Now, this is where I was thinking if we were on our bikes and there was somebody else was in the van how many drivers would have waited that extra 10 seconds before the bikes passed???

Answer... about ZERO! I'm picking.

[steve_t]

Posters have gone on about better training as a priority. good idea but it would take years to sort out.
If you introduce a more stringent system for new drivers you will still have the problem of all the existing drivers, probably 50 years for natural attrition to work through us all.

As would the change in the give way rule to bring us into line with the rest of the world. I never realised until getting on a bike how retarded and dangerous our give way system is.

[MarkH]

I never realised until getting on a bike how retarded and dangerous our give way system is.

Well, it's not as retarded and dangerous as the typical NZ car driver.

[shrub]

The SMIDSY excuse is total BS! What the average cage-clad punter fails to respond to as far as motorcycles go is a threat! Plain and simple... Once he sees a threat of any kind, eg PLOD! he reacts to it alright! Even if said ploddy type is only on two wheels! Failure to behave correctly will hurt and so driving behavior improves markedly.

I agree entirely. I am 190 cm and 120 kgs, wear black leathers and ride a black and very staunch looking Triumph with LOUD pipes. I very, very, VERY rarely have people not seeing me - probably 3 or 4 a year, and I ride around 15 - 20,000 kms a year including shitloads of urban. Why? I look scary and ride very assertively.

I have long been a fan of "everyone" must spend 6 months to a year on a motorbike before they are elligible to apply for a car license anyway. That way, they learn a bit of traffic/road-reading skills or Darwins theory takes them out of the equation and the ones that do survive but couldn't even cope on a lightweight and highly manoueverable piece of machinery would never get to be incharge of tonnes of high velocity bike-buggering tin-tops!

In Finland it is possible to get a license to ride a moped at 15 and a light motorcycle at 16, but not to drive a car until 18. Starter for 10: which European country has one of the lowest traffic crash rates in the world?