Speeding tickets. Why the angst?

[rastuscat]

I hope your not using that as an argument??? It's piss poor & misleading but I'm sure you know that.
switch out all the cars on the road for those used 12 years ago & see how that argument stands. The only thing that has improved safety over the years is the devices crammed into cars & the speed scam just rides on this success as justification

............and the nay-sayers continue to deny that vehicle safety, road engineering safety and targeted enforcement, as a package, have reduced the road toll.

Are you saying that it's vehicle engineering that decreased the crashes on the Auckland Harbour Bridge? Bollocks, it was road engineering, in the form of a barrier separating the traffic flows. I remember 1990 when a bloke called Hei Hei got pissed and crashed head on into a car load of family members. Blocked the bridge, killed 2, bloody mess. Compulsory Breath Testing, as an enforcement tool, has reduced the prevalence of drink driving in crashes.

Skoober, 12 years ago (23 years ago, actually) I was hearing the same old carping and whinging about how enforcement is all about revenue gathering. I still can't see how CBT raises revenue for us. Look at the bigger picture, and see that education, enforcement and engineering all play a part. Don't just pick the bits you like and which suit your argument.

Harumph.

[Scuba_Steve]

Ok, but there's a shitload more cars on the road (safer or not) yet the deaths are still down...not just per capita but as a whole

That's the info I have, it's not 'my argument'.

Your results may differ.

............and the nay-sayers continue to acknowledge that vehicle safety, road engineering safety and targeted enforcement, as a package, have reduced the road toll.

Skoober, 12 years ago (23 years ago, actually) I was hearing the same old carping and whinging about how enforcement is all about revenue gathering. Look at the bigger picture, and see that education, enforcement and engineering all play a part. Don't just pick the bits you like and which suit your argument.

Harumph.

don't twist words, Inforcement does not work & the way it's currently run it is straight scam. Passing lanes, downhill, straight flat roads.
if inforcement really did work accidents would be down. Fatalities are only down because of safety enhancements in cars like I said replace the cars on the road with those from 12-20 years ago see how the road toll fares.
So, how are accidents doing??? last I heard the % of accidents in relation to the number of vehicles on-road has only increased since the speed scam was pushed.

Yea, really sounds like the speed scam is working

However, one law that hasn't changed and that has no level of discretion is the law of physics.

Some blokes called Isaac Newton, Gottfried Leibniz and Johann Bernoulli came up with it, I think. It was the basis of the faster you go the bigger the mess promotion. If the population drove at an average of, say, 120 km/h, the carnage would be a lot more than 20% greater than of the population drove at 100 km/h. That's coz, as I understand, the kinetic energy increases at a greater rate than the speed i.e. it's non-proportional.

For that reason, and because traffic has to get around at some speed (otherwise we'd all be parked, not travelling), the gubbermint set a compromise of 100 km/h. It allows for a certain level of carnage. Go faster, the carnage increases. Go slower, productivity decreases.

Nice theory but doesn't really work does it? "faster you go bigger the mess" was banned because of being inaccurate & false. Physics also says the faster vehicle will be better off, much like how the SUV will be better off. If your theory was right trucks wouldn't be going faster than 30km/h & SUV's limited to 60km/h while bikes should be good to 150km/h if cars remain 100km/h

[rastuscat]

Skoober et al

The faster you go the bigger the mess, well that makes its way all the way from the school house. Remember being told not to run in the hallways? Same message. It changed to faster you go the greater the risk, as most Kiwis don't think a crash is going to happen to them, so why would they have to slow down? Can't possibly apply to them as they aren't going to crash.

Still, keep on distorting the truth Skoober, my thread keeps growing.

[Scuba_Steve]

Skoober et al

The faster you go the bigger the mess, well that makes its way all the way from the school house. Remember being told not to run in the hallways? Same message. It changed to faster you go the greater the risk, as most Kiwis don't think a crash is going to happen to them, so why would they have to slow down? Can't possibly apply to them as they aren't going to crash.

Still, keep on distorting the truth Skoober, my thread keeps growing.

I'm not distorting anything, I'm bringing the truth.

As I said a few days previous

If you can prove to me how some made up number & staying under it can magically save lives I'll listen, till then I'll continue spreading the truth & maybee a few will wise up & one day we can abolish the scam.
Don't confuse this either. There is dangerous driving, or too fast for the conditions (these can be done at any speed). What I'm against is the speed scam keeping your eyes off the road & on a speedo while calling it "safety" when all it does is make the Govt $$$. Which is exactly how they measure it too, how much money they brought in each year.

[SPman]

............and the nay-sayers continue to deny that vehicle safety, road engineering safety and targeted enforcement, as a package, have reduced the road toll.

On the contrary, vehicle safety and road engineering safety have been the biggest contributors to road safety over the last 20 yrs. We've, perhaps, seen the most contribution from vehicle safety, but road engineering still has a large part to play - particularly in large traffic volume areas.

In the late 90's, Montana had no open road speed limits. In 2000,with federally funded "safety" initiatives and a large political push, and against the advice of traffic engineers, they re-introduced speed limits (75mph) and vigorous enforcement. The results:-

"1. After the new Speed Limits were established, interstates fatal accidents went up 111%. From a modern low of 27 with no daytime limits, to a new high of 56 fatal accidents with speed limits.

2. On interstates and federal primary highways combined, Montana went from a modern low of 101 with no daytime limits, to a new high of 143 fatal accidents with speed limits.

3. After a 6 year downward trend in the percentage of multiple vehicle accidents on its 2 lane primary highways, multiple vehicle accident rates increased again.

4. With the expectation of higher speed when there was no daytime limit, Montana’s seat belt usage was well above the national average on its highways without a primary law, lane and road courtesy increased, speeds remained relatively stable and fatal accidents dropped to a modern low. After the new limits, fatal accidents climbed to a modern high on these classifications of highway, road courtesy decreased and flow conflict accidents rose again."

......This begs the question, do people change the way they drive when there is no speed limit? The evidence suggests the answer is yes. The measured vehicle speeds only changed a few miles per hour as predicted – comparable to data collected from other western states. What changed? The two most obvious changes were improved lane courtesy and increased seat belt use. Did other driving habits and patterns change as well?

...... People do, in fact, act in a reasonable and responsible manner without constant government intervention.
The Montana experience solidifies the long held traffic engineering axioms, “people don't automatically drive faster when the speed limit is raised, speed limit signs will not automatically decrease accident rates nor increase safety, and highways with posted speed limits are not necessarily safer than highways without posted limits.”


OK, NZ is not the US, but generally, people do react in similar ways. You will always get the loose, useless, reckless, incompetent bozos. Police on patrol, particularly if they patrol the same areas, tend to know the troublesome people and areas. They should be left to concentrate on these sections of the driving public (whilst still keeping a weather eye on the general driving public- everyone can make mistakes or sometimes needs a "reminder', and, while you canna change the laws of physics, the automatic assumption that everyone going slightly quicker than a preset limit, WILL crash, is poppycock!
Perhaps, breaking the addiction of authorities to the bounteous amounts of cash involved,might be a help - but, I can't see it happening any time soon.

or - maybe I ascribe greater levels of medium range competence to my fellow road users, than they potentially have........

[BoristheBiter]

I'm not distorting anything, I'm bringing the truth.

As I said a few days previous

You wouldn't know truth if it slapped you in the face.

The human body can only handle certain forces, after that injury occurs and sometimes it is fatal.
Yes some can die at very low speeds and some can walk away from massive accidents but the law of physics states that the likelihood of injury or death from an accident rises with speed.

No matter how good the road, the car/bike/truck or the driver is these laws can not be changed.
I think there might be a few on here, or not anymore, would disagree in your saying that the faster object is better off.

[Scuba_Steve]

You wouldn't know truth if it slapped you in the face.

The human body can only handle certain forces, after that injury occurs and sometimes it is fatal.
Yes some can die at very low speeds and some can walk away from massive accidents but the law of physics states that the likelihood of injury or death from an accident rises with speed.

No matter how good the road, the car/bike/truck or the driver is these laws can not be changed.
I think there might be a few on here, or not anymore, would disagree in your saying that the faster object is better off.

"Pictures say 1000 words"

[BoristheBiter]

"Pictures say 1000 words"

That says more about you than me.

[Scuba_Steve]

That says more about you than me.

just cause you can't see truth when it's slapping you in the face don't stop it from being the truth

[swbarnett]

In the interesets of my sanity and blood pressure I'm not going to reply specifically to every post in this thread that just simply defies logic.

One smiley sums up this "discussion" quite nicely from both sides


This is an emotionally based argument not at all unlike a religious debate. As such, neither side is ever going to make any real headway in trying to convince the other of the righteousness of their position.

And, just for the record, I am neither dumb, blind nor careless (based on the opinion of those I trust, BTW, not mine).

I think we all agree that carnage is bad. Where we differ boils down to two important points:

1. The level of carnage that we deem "acceptable".

and

2. The amount of collatoral damage that we are willing to accept as a result of any attempt to reduce the level of carnage.


There are two opposing philosophies at work here - one where it doesn't matter if the "innocent"* get convicted as long as one is able to convince oneself that what you're doing is reducing the carnage - and one where oppression of the "innocent" definitely does matter.

The former is characterised by a belief that it's better to jail an innocent person than run ANY risk of letting a murderer go free. The latter, of course, is the opposite - rather a murderer goes free than an innocent person is jailed.

Most people, I believe, hold to the former and, as a result, this is what guides most of our laws and creates a society where thousands of innocent people are penalised daily in order to catch the one or two that are actually dangerous.


*By "innocent" I mean those operating within the spirit of the law if not within the letter i.e. in this case over the limit but within the conditions.

[baffa]

Nice theory but doesn't really work does it? "faster you go bigger the mess" was banned because of being inaccurate & false. Physics also says the faster vehicle will be better off, much like how the SUV will be better off. If your theory was right trucks wouldn't be going faster than 30km/h & SUV's limited to 60km/h while bikes should be good to 150km/h if cars remain 100km/h

Wow. Who taught you physics?
I'd like to be able to agree with you about speed limits, but your arguments do little but prove the other side right.

A good driver on a good road with a good vehicle is capable of exceeding the current limits. Of that I dont think there is any doubt.

The problem is, kiwis are not good drivers, and we just wont talk about the average road and vehicle standards.

You have to cater to the lowest common denominator.

Older vehicles, trucks etc are not safe to be travelling at higher speeds.
So what do we do for vehicles that supposedly are? Where do we draw the line?

If anything many of our driving skills have gotten worse. The majority of people I see on the road can't even figure out how to indicate on a round a bout. We have ABS and a billion airbags in modern vehicles, and SUVs that drive like cars, so drivers are lulled into a false sense of security.

[BoristheBiter]

That says more about you than me.

So what you are saying is the faster you go the less likely you are not only to have a crash, but if you do you will have less injury's?

[Scuba_Steve]

Wow. Who taught you physics?
I'd like to be able to agree with you about speed limits, but your arguments do little but prove the other side right.

A good driver on a good road with a good vehicle is capable of exceeding the current limits. Of that I dont think there is any doubt.

The problem is, kiwis are not good drivers, and we just wont talk about the average road and vehicle standards.

You have to cater to the lowest common denominator.

Firstly I passed Physics, did you???
Don't believe what I say heres a very simple test to prove it & no-one has to die.
Just find someone else willing (might be best to be drunk for this) & head butt each other, the one to come worse off will be the one who hesitates putting less speed thus kinetic force behind their blow, as people keep saying "the law of physics don't change" so this is the same for cars too. That's why it's usually the "speeder" coming best off & killing the other vehicles occupants, the force is transferred to the lesser.

This "lowest common dominator" argument is BS too, it was addressed couple pages back, we create the lowest common dominator through our laws & roads. The lower you cater for the lower they go, people would be better drivers if they were forced to be.
You said it yourself our roads have improved and we've added lots of pretty lights telling people what to do, while laws keep getting tighter & we have the slowest overall speed we've had in quite awhile. we catered for the lowest common dominator time & time again, yet...

If anything many of our driving skills have gotten worse, The majority of people I see on the road can't even figure out how to indicate on a round a bout.

[Scuba_Steve]

So what you are saying is the faster you go the less likely you are not only to have a crash, but if you do you will have less injury's?

NO!!! you are less likely to be involved in a crash if you are travelling at a safe comfortable speed watching the road instead of an insignificant needle on an insignificant dial. Driving to the conditions rather than a made-up number.

*If you do crash I only said being the faster one is safer in the same way that being in the SUV is safer, you'll come out better off as you have the greater kinetic energy I'm not saying you should go faster for this reason (just like I wouldn't advise getting a SUV for this reason) just saying "faster you go the bigger the mess" doesn't work as physics has a different view on occasions, vehicle vs brick wall yes it can work there but I wouldn't advise driving into them either & your less likely to if your driving to the condition than driving to an artificial made-up limit.


*equivalent vehicles

[baffa]

[QUOTE=Scuba_Steve;1130220198]Firstly I passed Physics, did you???
Don't believe what I say heres a very simple test to prove it & no-one has to die.
Just find someone else willing (might be best to be drunk for this) & head butt each other, the one to come worse off will be the one who hesitates putting less speed thus kinetic force behind their blow, as people keep saying "the law of physics don't change" so this is the same for cars too. That's why it's usually the "speeder" coming best off & killing the other vehicles occupants, the force is transferred to the lesser.
[QUOTE]

How about you test that theory by heat butting a wall. I'm sure the wall will be a lot worse off than you if your theory is correct.

And yeah I did, and I do understand physics. I think you need to take another look at Newtons laws.