Speeding, is it the real issue?

[scumdog]

hokae. i'll put it this way:

based on my observation and given the facts (we'll go with the T-boning my cousin got), had he been trapped in the driver's seat with a belt, he would have ~2tonnes of 4x4 embedded in his body, a condition which is most often fatal.

basically to say that seatbelts always save lives in all crashes, i find BS.

+1

True - it doesn't ALWAYS save lifes.

But I've seen a slew of Government sponsored cabbages and dead people that wouldn't have been that way had they bothered to wear their seat-belt.

[Virago]

...Anti-speeding propaganda is everywhere, we are lead to believe that as soon as we travel 4km/h over the limit, we are going to die a horrible fiery death. But this is not really the case and neither is it the largest cause of death on our roads. But of course you believe otherwise right? The Government has told you so and they must be right...

The first rule of reasoned research - don't distort facts. Please point us in the direction of ANY documentation that will confirm the above claim. No? I didn't think so.

Anti-speeding campaigns will point out two issues. Firstly, statistics confirm that high speed is a known contributor to crashes. Secondly, the higher the speed, the greater the risk of death or injury. Nowhere does it say that "you're going to die if you speed". Please don't base your arguments on a statement of pure nonsense.

People who argue against speed limits base their arguments on one basic position. Me. It's all about me. My rights. I'm a good driver / rider, I should be able to go as fast as my wonderful skills will allow.

What they tend to ignore / dismiss, is that high speed reduces the margin of error, for both yourself and other road users. Do you really have the right to do that?

[scumdog]

The first rule of reasoned research - don't distort facts. Please point us in the direction of ANY documentation that will confirm the above claim. No? I didn't think so.

Anti-speeding campaigns will point out two issues. Firstly, statistics confirm that high speed is a known contributor to crashes. Secondly, the higher the speed, the greater the risk of death or injury. Nowhere does it say that "you're going to die if you speed". Please don't base your arguments on a statement of pure nonsense.

People who argue against speed limits base their arguments on one basic position. Me. It's all about me. My rights. I'm a good driver / rider, I should be able to go as fast as my wonderful skills will allow.

What they tend to ignore / dismiss, is that high speed reduces the margin of error, for both yourself and other road users. Do you really have the right to do that?

100% agree.

KB way: "They are always telling us speed kills' or 'we will die if we go over 104kph' blah-blah-blah.
Reality: whataloadofcodswollop...

[The Singing Chef]

The first rule of reasoned research - don't distort facts. Please point us in the direction of ANY documentation that will confirm the above claim. No? I didn't think so.

Anti-speeding campaigns will point out two issues. Firstly, statistics confirm that high speed is a known contributor to crashes. Secondly, the higher the speed, the greater the risk of death or injury. Nowhere does it say that "you're going to die if you speed". Please don't base your arguments on a statement of pure nonsense.

People who argue against speed limits base their arguments on one basic position. Me. It's all about me. My rights. I'm a good driver / rider, I should be able to go as fast as my wonderful skills will allow.

What they tend to ignore / dismiss, is that high speed reduces the margin of error, for both yourself and other road users. Do you really have the right to do that?

I think it comes down to how you interpret it, unless you take everything at face value?

NZ Herald article <-

Police fed up with carnage on the roads will prosecute every driver caught more than 4km/h over the speed limit this Queen's Birthday weekend.

The move comes in the wake of a horror holiday weekend last year, in which 10 people were killed and 32 seriously injured - the highest toll in 13 years.

National road policing manager Superintendent Paula Rose said police will be out in force from tomorrow to enforce the tough new stance, which will see police reduce their 10 per cent tolerance for driving over the speed limit to just 5 per cent.

They are sick of the high death rate, so in a move that they say will drop the death toll they bring in the 4km/h tolerance. Now there must be a reason that they target such a small increase in speed in order to drop the death toll over public holidays in a large way?

So the way I see it is that we are now going to be pulled over for 4km/h over in order to keep the death toll down, so does that mean that if we go over the 4km/h tolerance, we are then a lot more likely to crash and/or die.

Statistics also confirm that the largest amount of crashes by far, is in the 50km/h zone. Yes, high speeds are a factor in crashes but then so are many other things.

Yes there is an increased risk for injury or death, I am sure that every body knows that. But according to statistics, it is far more dangerous to travel at 50km/h, so should we lower the speed limit some more? Maybe 30km/h would be safer, better for pedestrians, cyclists, more time to stop if a child runs out for sure!

How am I basing the argument on ME? It is to look at what we are being told and what is actually happening. I have no problem sticking to the speed limit now, more than less anyway. So I'm not looking to try and justify to myself that speeding is either bad or ok, but more so the general public who think that speed is of the devil and then begin to slag off the wonderful name of bikers whom they have a less than ideal view of.

Yes High speed reduces the margin of error, but so does 1 beer, one adjustment of the radio. Everything you do is going to affect the margin of error, but would you rather be focussing on the road around you or constantly checking your speed, just in case.

[Kickaha]

based on my observation and given the facts (we'll go with the T-boning my cousin got), had he been trapped in the driver's seat with a belt, he would have ~2tonnes of 4x4 embedded in his body, a condition which is most often fatal.

Young guy who worked for me put his civic sideways into a powerpole doing 80-100kmh, impact right on the drivers door and pole ended up about where he was sitting, he was wearing a seatbelt and had to be cut from the car, badly broken leg was the result and about a week in hospital while they scewed it back together, looking at the photos you'd swear it would have been a fatal so I don't think it's quite as easy to pick a "yes he would have died had he been wearing one" accident

Inappropriate speed is the issue not just speed in itself

Statistics also confirm that the largest amount of crashes by far, is in the 50km/h zone.

What speed and area do you think the majority of NZ traffic travels at each day?

[ducatilover]

"seatbelts save idots" is probably more apt.

The spelling mistake makes this somewhat ironic.

I don't see the need for discussion here, cars crash because of people.
With attentive drivers and better trained drivers, there will be a dramatic reduction in crashes.
The faster you drive, the less likely you are to avoid an incident in front of you.
End of the bloody story.

[Virago]

...So the way I see it is that we are now going to be pulled over for 4km/h over in order to keep the death toll down, so does that mean that if we go over the 4km/h tolerance, we are then a lot more likely to crash and/or die...

Arguably, yes - but I have my own reservations about the 4km/hr vs 10km/hr tolerance. But there's a difference between a claim of "more likely to crash and/or die" and your interpretation of "you WILL die". Yes, you're entitled to your interpretation of what was meant, but it doesn't make it any less silly.

And I do indeed have concerns about the cynical police use of statistics to back their claims of reducing the road toll with the lower tolerance. They will gleefully claim credit when the road toll over a weekend is lower, but happily ignore an excessively high toll during a tolerance blitz (such as happened last Christmas).

Some tolerance on speed limits is necessary to ensure fairness. Speedos may be incorrect, speed may creep a little in road dips etc. Personally, I think the 10km/hr tolerance is fair and reasonable - althought there is a tendency for the public to adopt it as a "+10" speed limit. How many times have police officers been told by a 115km/hr speeder - "I was ony 5k over...".

Longing for the good old days before the "PC Nanny State"? Here's some info for you - back when I learned to drive / ride, the open road speed limit was 80km/hr. Ah, the good old days, eh?

Arbitrary values need to be placed upon our driving limits, for the public good. Whether that is speed limits, or blood/breath alcohol limits, or vehicle licensing parameters.

Your arguments about speed could also be applied to the alcohol issue. Someone with a breath alcohol reading of 500mcg might be a far better driver than someone else with a 300mcg reading. Should we allow skillful drunk drivers to decide their own limits? Of course not, the 400mcg blanket limit is the only fair (and generally safe) way to control drunk drivers.

And so it is with speed. You don't have to like (or agree with) the arbitrary limits, but you do have to observe them - or face the consequences. Just like the drunk driver.

[Akzle]

Your arguments about speed could also be applied to the alcohol issue. Someone with a breath alcohol reading of 500mcg might be a far better driver than someone else with a 300mcg reading. Should we allow skillful drunk drivers to decide their own limits? Of course not, the 400mcg blanket limit is the only fair (and generally safe) way to control drunk drivers.

And so it is with speed. You don't have to like (or agree with) the arbitrary limits, but you do have to observe them - or face the consequences. Just like the drunk driver.

i think we should arbitrarily limit your ability to voice your opinion.

that is such a crock of shit. i'm a better driver with 2000mics of breath alcohol than most city-dwellers when they wake up.
setting the bar so low that no-one can fail, as the NZ govt is wont to do, is not going to improve road safety or the quality of life for anyone, or the future of the economy.

[Virago]

i think we should arbitrarily limit your ability to voice your opinion.

that is such a crock of shit. i'm a better driver with 2000mics of breath alcohol than most city-dwellers when they wake up.
setting the bar so low that no-one can fail, as the NZ govt is wont to do, is not going to improve road safety or the quality of life for anyone, or the future of the economy.

Internationally, NZ's alcohol driving levels are rather high.

The bench-mark for defining a dickhead lies in their firm belief in their ability to drive well when drunk.

I rest my case...

[The Singing Chef]

Arguably, yes - but I have my own reservations about the 4km/hr vs 10km/hr tolerance. But there's a difference between a claim of "more likely to crash and/or die" and your interpretation of "you WILL die". Yes, you're entitled to your interpretation of what was meant, but it doesn't make it any less silly.

And I do indeed have concerns about the cynical police use of statistics to back their claims of reducing the road toll with the lower tolerance. They will gleefully claim credit when the road toll over a weekend is lower, but happily ignore an excessively high toll during a tolerance blitz (such as happened last Christmas).

Some tolerance on speed limits is necessary to ensure fairness. Speedos may be incorrect, speed may creep a little in road dips etc. Personally, I think the 10km/hr tolerance is fair and reasonable - althought there is a tendency for the public to adopt it as a "+10" speed limit. How many times have police officers been told by a 115km/hr speeder - "I was ony 5k over...".

Longing for the good old days before the "PC Nanny State"? Here's some info for you - back when I learned to drive / ride, the open road speed limit was 80km/hr. Ah, the good old days, eh?

Arbitrary values need to be placed upon our driving limits, for the public good. Whether that is speed limits, or blood/breath alcohol limits, or vehicle licensing parameters.

Your arguments about speed could also be applied to the alcohol issue. Someone with a breath alcohol reading of 500mcg might be a far better driver than someone else with a 300mcg reading. Should we allow skillful drunk drivers to decide their own limits? Of course not, the 400mcg blanket limit is the only fair (and generally safe) way to control drunk drivers.

And so it is with speed. You don't have to like (or agree with) the arbitrary limits, but you do have to observe them - or face the consequences. Just like the drunk driver.

That's fair and I may have exaggerated that point a little.

I think that the tolerance is definitely needed and 10km/h does seem to be a fair limit. Also, yes I have noticed the adoption of using the 110km/h tolerance to their favour, but hey, when they get pulled over then it's fair enough to get a ticket.

I had heard that, re the 80km/h limit. I'm thinking of it more as a general state than just for roads though. Every little thing has become regulated and if it hasn't yet then it most likely will be soon.

Alcohol impairs the mind, speed doesn't. I couldn't think of an argument to try and defend drink driving.

I also have no problem with the limit as it is, nor following it any more. It is all about public knowledge, it's always best to hear two sides of the story and put up an informative argument, rather than just listen to the Government, bend over backwards and take it like the slaves we are becoming.

[tigertim20]

Young guy who worked for me put his civic sideways into a powerpole doing 80-100kmh, impact right on the drivers door and pole ended up about where he was sitting, he was wearing a seatbelt and had to be cut from the car, badly broken leg was the result and about a week in hospital while they scewed it back together, looking at the photos you'd swear it would have been a fatal so I don't think it's quite as easy to pick a "yes he would have died had he been wearing one" accident

Inappropriate speed is the issue not just speed in itself


What speed and area do you think the majority of NZ traffic travels at each day?

I agree with the "Innapropriate speed" part, however (and this links back to Virago's point) the definition of what constitutes innapropriate speed is highly debatable, I know MY limits and how fast I can ride/drive, I do the servicing on my own vehicles so I know their roadworthiness as of right now unlike others who are ignorant and assume a current wof from 5 months ago means they are safe, therefore, i should be allowed to drive at xxx over the speed limit.

as for 'the statistics' heres a point.
the 7 dwarfs, one is named happy right?
so, statistically, 6 out of 7 dwarfs arent happy, right? - OK, hardly a fantastic example I admit, but the point is valid, statistics are basically about HOW you choose to compile or display the numbers more than the truth of the numbers themselves, its easy to use the same numbers to argue opposing points.

As for speed being a factor in an accident, well thats an interesting one. Two stationary cars arent going to crash are they? - no. So of course being in motion at any given time makes your speed a factor in whatever outcome occurs - thus 'speed' is a factor in EVERY crash, provided at least on vehicle was in motion at the time, or immediately prior to contact.

I think Virago is right, you need to rely more on cold, hard facts presented in the most neutral manner possible, you cannot rely on an emotional response/interpretation, as that is going to reduce any support for your opinions right from the start

[Winston001]

Good on you Chefie, you have a point of view and you are working out your arguments.

Plenty of people moan and whinge but don't take the necessary step of formulating what bothers them.

More power to you.

[rastuscat]

[COLOR="#139922"] i'm a better driver with 2000mics of breath alcohol than most city-dwellers when they wake up.

And so ends any credibility you had left.

Gosh, I'm glad you are such a shit hot driver. Wish we were all as good as you.

Yeah right.

[Scuba_Steve]

Anti-speeding campaigns will point out two issues. Firstly, statistics confirm that high speed is a known contributor to crashes. Secondly, the higher the speed, the greater the risk of death or injury. Nowhere does it say that "you're going to die if you speed". Please don't base your arguments on a statement of pure nonsense.

...

What they tend to ignore / dismiss, is that high speed reduces the margin of error, for both yourself and other road users. Do you really have the right to do that?

Statistics confirm neither of your claims (dependent on your definition of "high speed") They attempt to imply these but they cannot confirm either as neither is true.

As for "margin of error" yes this can be reduced with higher speeds but the chances of needed that margin of error is also decreased with the absence of the speed scam & arbitrary speed limits.

Inappropriate speed is the issue not just speed in itself

What speed and area do you think the majority of NZ traffic travels at each day?

that 1st statement there is correct along with people just can't drive. "speed" has little to do with any of this as proved by the 2nd statement

[rastuscat]

Speed is a causal factor in a small number of crashes.

However, it is a determinative factor in every crash. Faster speed imparts greater energy. Simple fact.

Good that someone is thinking about the speed kills propaganda. When you come up with a solution please try to make it practical to apply in real life to all drivers/riders. solutions that require differential application are a no go.