4kmh tolerance for Waitangi Weekend until 29 February?

[Drew]

well my response to that came from your very own hand

You're Charlie Sheen aren't you? Just posting on our forum for fun aye?

[BoristheBiter]

you can't explain little boy, you don't even understand it and the worst part is you wrote it.
Like I said from now on it would be best if you got your mum to help you with future online posts, she'll help you understand what you are writing & be able to explain other posts in a dumbed down form you can understand.
Your letting you inadequacies turn you into an angry little boy, you just need some help is all.

So you are just trolling then.

[mashman]

All I've ever seen is that AFTER limits were set, deaths went up.
If deaths in NT were higher than 'average' to start with, then something else is going on and introducing limits is not the answer (we know that anyway - not that we actually know what the answer is)

More vehicles on the road? or driving standard change? or a change in expectations as to how everyone else is going to be driving?

[Scuba_Steve]

All I've ever seen is that AFTER limits were set, deaths went up.

Yep thats what I've seen too, this also went for Arizona (I think) or some state i the US, where deaths sharply rose after speed limits were introduced. and yet one of the safest roads in the world, autobahn.
Also from NZ
In the early 1970s, as a result of the 1973 oil shock, both New Zealand and the United States imposed new, lower speed limits in an effort to save fuel. In New Zealand’s case the limit dropped from 60 mph (100ks) to 50mph (80ks), while in the US it dropped to 55 mph - the so-called "double nickel".
In the ten years leading up to the drop in the New Zealand speed limit, an average of 608 New Zealanders had died on the roads each year.
In the ten years that followed the drop from 100 kph down to 80 kph, an average of 707 New Zealanders died on the roads each year: in other words, the new, lower New Zealand speed limit coincided with a 17% increase in road deaths.

Deaths on NZ roads were also on a steady decrease till around 1990 when the decrease flattened out (now who can tell me what came in round this time?) & since 2000 pretty much has stabilized if not gone up slightly. Fact still remains vehicles are saving lives speed scams are endangering them.

[Scuba_Steve]

You're Charlie Sheen aren't you? Just posting on our forum for fun aye?

How did you know

[MSTRS:Me]

Deaths on NZ roads were also on a steady decrease till around 1990 when the decrease flattened out (now who can tell me what came in round this time?) & since 2000 pretty much has stabilized if not gone up slightly. Fact still remains vehicles are saving lives speed scams are endangering them.

Nevada, wasn't it? Remember the bit in the Bert Munro film?
Not sure, but guessing roadside cameras?
Actually, the death toll is still inching down overall. Of course that has NOTHING to do with the changed tolerance...

[Drew]

Actually, the death toll is still inching down overall. Of course that has NOTHING to do with the changed tolerance...

I think it's got more to do with cars getting safer, than drivers improving.

At some point, cars will be capable of driving into each other head on at 100k's without anyone dying. So if the limit doesn't get raised, eventually the road toll will be zero for all but pedestrians.

[MSTRS:Me]

I think it's got more to do with cars getting safer, than drivers improving.

At some point, cars will be capable of driving into each other head on at 100k's without anyone dying. So if the limit doesn't get raised, eventually the road toll will be zero for all but pedestrians.

I think you're forgetting a large segment...

[Scuba_Steve]

I think it's got more to do with cars getting safer, than drivers improving.

At some point, cars will be capable of driving into each other head on at 100k's without anyone dying. So if the limit doesn't get raised, eventually the road toll will be zero for all but pedestrians.

except that relies on the banning of bikes (both motorized & non) & forcing everyone to purchase a newer "safe" car, then also you have to factor in trucks & buses a hit from them at the old 80km/h limit is equivalent to a hit from a car at 440km/h so we'll never hit zero but your've got the right basis. It's the cars doing all the safety work, drivers are getting worse & speed scams create accidents & danger so the vehicle & almost the vehicle alone is saving lives with improved roading taking up the slack.

[Zedder]

Bearing in mind Aussie keenness for alcohol and the NT still has open road speed limits of 110 and 130kph in places here's some data: http://www.roadsafety.nt.gov.au/stats/index.shtml

[steve_t]

Bearing in mind Aussie keenness for alcohol and the NT still has open road speed limits of 110 and 130kph in places here's some data: http://www.roadsafety.nt.gov.au/stats/index.shtml

So your link says in 2006, before the limit imposition, there were 44 fatalities. In 2007 after they put in the limits, there were 57 and in 2008 there were 75.

[rastuscat]

Interesting to see the contrasting views on here, and how it's morphed into various topics. It's good that we can disagree, and have a laugh at some of the humorous responses.

Still, just to drag reality back. Kinetic energy is mass x velocity(squared).

So, a 1000kg vehicle (e.g. a Hardley Rideable or a Honda Civic) going at 100 km/h produces this

Mass (1000) x (100x100), or 1000 x 10000 somethings. That's 10,000,000 somethings.

Probably kilojoules, but that's about weight loss, I think. I'll check with Mrs Cat.

Increase the speed of the Civic (really difficult to do that on a Hardley) to 110 km/h, and here's how it looks.

1000 x (110x110), or 12,100,000 somethings.

So, increase the speed by 10%, and the kinetic energy of the vehicle increases by 21%.

That's why there is some attempt at limiting the shit that happens at speed. I think it's make more sense to limit the amount of kinetic energy a motorist is allowed to impart, but the only real world way to do that is via a speed limit. Fat people shouldn't be allowed to go as fast as thin people, but that's another campaign.

Now, I'm not suggesting that speed causes all those nasty, tewwible cwashes that Mrs Wose talks about, but even I can see the sense in everyone imparting less kinetic energy when the crashes that happen for any reason, happen.

So, I'm all for having no speed limit, and everyone making their own judgement on how fast to travel at. Once, that is, every fecking numpty learns to drive. Every one, not just the really shit hot ace riders on here.

Ho hum, back to the garden. Really loving the garden. Not.

[Zedder]

Remember Steve I wrote "Bearing in mind" etc. Check out the info below the second table: A summary of factors pdf.

[Scuba_Steve]

That's why there is some attempt at limiting the shit that happens at speed. I think it's make more sense to limit the amount of kinetic energy a motorist is allowed to impart, but the only real world way to do that is via a speed limit. Fat people shouldn't be allowed to go as fast as thin people, but that's another campaign.

So your saying we should (using cars as the baseline) allow cars to go 100km/h, motorbikes 220km/h, SUV's & Harley's 60km/h & trucks 15km/h so the energy imparted would be around equal.

Would be a world of chaos to be sure, not to mention the "that part will be a couple weeks, has to come down from Auckland by truck"

[davereid]

So, a 1000kg vehicle (e.g. a Hardley Rideable or a Honda Civic) going at 100 km/h produces this

Mass (1000) x (100x100), or 1000 x 10000 somethings. That's 10,000,000 somethings.

The kinetic energy thing creates some interesting outcomes.

Lets say we have two identical vehicles both doing 100 km/hr and they have a head on crash.

They have identical mass and velocity, identical energy and will both decelerate to zero in the same amount of time. Equal energy absorbed by both vehicles, so similar survival outcomes for the occupants, as they all experience exactly the same deceleration, and its the deceleration that kills you.

But then imaging one vehicle is speeding, or its much heavier. Its got more kinetic energy.

When they collide, the crash involves this extra energy.

But what happens is, the crash is no longer equal.

The vehicle with the least energy will stop, and possibly even be pushed backwards by the other vehicle. The vehicle with the higher energy will have much more deceleration time, and thus will have a better chance of being survivable.

Thats why I always speed.