ANPR vans

[Edbear]

If only this were true. Even those laws that are truly there for our benifit are only for the benifit of the majority.


Yes it is. What I want is the freedom to act on my own beliefs where it's only me directly involved. I think driving to the conditions above the speed limit is fine, the law doesn't. Therefore I don't get to live by my beliefs and stay legal.

No. God help us if we did. Life would not be worth living it would be so boring. What is required is the legal incarnation of a "live and let live" attitude.

Totally agree that we should be free to do whatever we want, as long as it doesn't effect anyone else.

Thing is, driving virtually always effects someone else. Even if it's only the person paying tax to fund the facial reconstruction you are having due to not wearing your seatbelt.

Doing 111 down the Lindis Pass seems so damn innocent and undangerous. So do so many other things, at least subjectively. I could reel off the party line on justifying the enforcement of such rules, but given that the justifications can't be agreed as being definitive, is there much point?

Everyone caught in excess of a speed limit can find a dozen reasons why their speed was safe, why the ticket is unjust, why it's not their bad.

Thing is, the Gubbermint enacts rules, then sends the coercive arm of the state out to enforce those rules. Same with the ANPR thing. Is a question of how they are used. They can be used totally mercilessly to target inconsequential trivial things, though even that's a subjective thing. Some folk see licensing a vehicle as important, though to be fair, it's not on my hit list.

Still, the freedom to disagree is important to have, and I sure hope that it doesn't change. Remember though, that I have the right, just as you might have, to disagree with your, um, disagreement.

Of course, I entirely disagree.

Therein lies the issue. Show me an incompetent driver/rider who knows he is incompetent and I will show you a pedestrian/ passenger.

Everyone reckons they are safe and competent and should be allowed to make their own judgement as to what speed or vehicle condition is appropriate. So did all those who crashed and died and/or maimed and killed others. So does every boy racer, or aged Grandpa in his dented Corolla.

So to take swbarnett's opinion, there should be no road rules at all, and all should be able to do as they please. Or is he being a hypocrite and believes only "good" riders and drivers should? Of course he is emminently qualified to judge this, is he not, both in his own behalf and in behalf of all other road users?

[swbarnett]

Orwell's book was actually set in the future, he thought all the things he wrote about would come to pass by then but was a bit out in his projection.

It was stated in the sequal "1985", apparently, that Orwell wanted to comment on the society he lived in. Of course, they could be wrong.

[BoristheBiter]

If only this were true. Even those laws that are truly there for our benifit are only for the benifit of the majority.

Don't know how I missed this little gem.

[swbarnett]

Therein lies the issue. Show me an incompetent driver/rider who knows he is incompetent and I will show you a pedestrian/ passenger.

This is one thing I loved about Switzerland. The public transport was so good that those that didn't want to drive didn't have to. The driving standard was, therefore, very high.

Everyone reckons they are safe and competent and should be allowed to make their own judgement as to what speed or vehicle condition is appropriate. So did all those who crashed and died and/or maimed and killed others. So does every boy racer, or aged Grandpa in his dented Corolla.

The fact of the matter is that there are a large number of roads in NZ that are dangerous if taken at speeds near but under the speed limit. On these roads we are allowed to use our own judgement so why not on those that are safe over the current limit?

So to take swbarnett's opinion, there should be no road rules at all, and all should be able to do as they please. Or is he being a hypocrite and believes only "good" riders and drivers should? Of course he is emminently qualified to judge this, is he not, both in his own behalf and in behalf of all other road users?

There should be no road rules where they cannot be fairly applied under all circumstances. For example, on a two lane road, the driving conditions have no bearing on which side of the road we drive on. One side can be fairly enforced over the other under all circumstances. A speed limit, on the other hand cannot be applied fairly because the need to stay under a set speed may or may not be present. Flawed as it still would be, I'd far rather do away with speed limits and have a charge of "driving without due care and attention" applied to speed beyond what is prudent for the conditions.

[scumdog]

The fact of the matter is that there are a large number of roads in NZ that are dangerous if taken at speeds near but under the speed limit. On these roads we are allowed to use our own judgement so why not on those that are safe over the current limit?

Because the 'judgement' of so many wax-heads on our roads is abysmal, our road toll shows that.

I've seen a drunk wood-louse with better judgement than a lot of road-users in NZ.

Just sayin...

[FJRider]

If only this were true. Even those laws that are truly there for our benifit are only for the benifit of the majority.

So ... WHO are the "Special People" .. those laws DON"T apply to ... ???

What I want is the freedom to act on my own beliefs where it's only me directly involved. I think driving to the conditions above the speed limit is fine, the law doesn't. Therefore I don't get to live by my beliefs and stay legal.

Question answered ... YOU think you are "Special" then ... it must be a bugger being part of a minority group.

The majority benefit from the extra contributions ... those special people make to society too ...

[Zedder]

It was stated in the sequal "1985", apparently, that Orwell wanted to comment on the society he lived in. Of course, they could be wrong.

Yes, they are wrong. The sequel wasn't even written by Orwell but his earlier book was a prescient (ie: showing knowledge of things before they exist) novel actually describing the world in 2008 quite closely according to literary and historical experts. Cheers.

[Edbear]

This is one thing I loved about Switzerland. The public transport was so good that those that didn't want to drive didn't have to. The driving standard was, therefore, very high.

The fact of the matter is that there are a large number of roads in NZ that are dangerous if taken at speeds near but under the speed limit. On these roads we are allowed to use our own judgement so why not on those that are safe over the current limit?

There should be no road rules where they cannot be fairly applied under all circumstances. For example, on a two lane road, the driving conditions have no bearing on which side of the road we drive on. One side can be fairly enforced over the other under all circumstances. A speed limit, on the other hand cannot be applied fairly because the need to stay under a set speed may or may not be present. Flawed as it still would be, I'd far rather do away with speed limits and have a charge of "driving without due care and attention" applied to speed beyond what is prudent for the conditions.

Idealistic you are, realistic and practical you are not.

Because the 'judgement' of so many wax-heads on our roads is abysmal, our road toll shows that.

I've seen a drunk wood-louse with better judgement than a lot of road-users in NZ.

Just sayin...

Don't see too many wood louse around these parts, especially drunk one's but my six year old Grandson shows a better understanding of the practicalities of driving on a public road. You know, the roads where the public drive?

On a race track one can generally count on the other "road users" being fairly competent and going in the same direction and having reasonably good judgement. Much like swbarnett I expect...

[Ocean1]

So ... WHO are the "Special People" .. those laws DON"T apply to ... ???



Question answered ... YOU think you are "Special" then ... it must be a bugger being part of a minority group.

The majority benefit from the extra contributions ... those special people make to society too ...

He's not a minority. Ask a bunch of Kiwis if they've exceeded the speed limit this week, becha most have. So we've got a law that most people don't obey, now do you think that's the majority's fault? or the law's?

See, while you deride him for failing to conform, I reckon those who insist on others behaving according to rules set by a clear minority are far more worthy targets.

He's not "special" in the off-handed, derogatory sense you mean. If you have to label people like him then you could see what he thinks of "rational anarchist".

[FJRider]

He's not a minority. Ask a bunch of Kiwis if they've exceeded the speed limit this week, becha most have. So we've got a law that most people don't obey, now do you think that's the majority's fault? or the law's?

See, while you deride him for failing to conform, I reckon those who insist on others behaving according to rules set by a clear minority are far more worthy targets.

He's not "special" in the off-handed, derogatory sense you mean. If you have to label people like him then you could see what he thinks of "rational anarchist".

Regardless of the fact that he ... or anybody else doesn't like the rules relating to speed allowed on the road ... they are STILL lawful legislation. And they ARE there for the benefit and safety of ALL members of New Zealand society.

If he believes his actions can ... and will (could) not affect any other member of society ... at any time. Then he is truly special (gifted even .. to know for sure), but the label would only be "Traffic offender" ... sorry to burst your (his) bubble.

[scumdog]

He's not a minority. Ask a bunch of Kiwis if they've exceeded the speed limit this week, becha most have. So we've got a law that most people don't obey, now do you think that's the majority's fault? or the law's?

See, while you deride him for failing to conform, I reckon those who insist on others behaving according to rules set by a clear minority are far more worthy targets.

Hmmm, a lot of life is the same - minority 'causing' laws to be created - laws then expected to be obeyed by the majority...

Like drink-driving...

[FJRider]

See, while you deride him for failing to conform, I reckon those who insist on others behaving according to rules set by a clear minority are far more worthy targets.

I did a Google search on ... penalties for "Failing to conform" as stated in legislation ... 0 results. So that in itself is not a crime.

What is interesting ... that no political party (that I am aware of) has as yet, indicated ANY intention of raising the existing open road speed limit .... if they were to become the political party in power.

[Ocean1]

Regardless of the fact that he ... or anybody else doesn't like the rules relating to speed allowed on the road ... they are STILL lawful legislation. And they ARE there for the benefit and safety of ALL members of New Zealand society.

The majority don't agree with you.

If he believes his actions can ... and will (could) not affect any other member of society ... at any time. Then he is truly special (gifted even .. to know for sure), but the label would only be "Traffic offender" ... sorry to burst your (his) bubble.

And obviously he believes that his actions are for him to decide, calling him names probably won't change that.

Hmmm, a lot of life is the same - minority 'causing' laws to be created - laws then expected to be obeyed by the majority...

Like drink-driving...

And how many drunk drivers take much notice of that law?

How many of the fatalities and injuries occuring on our roads occured at below the speed limit? Fuck all.

See, nobody actually gives a fuck what the law says, they behave pretty much exactly as they choose. The fact that most choose to behave in ways that don't break many rules too often has nothing to do with the rules.

Enforcing rules that the majority don't agree with doesn't make them obedient wee pixies all of a sudden, it just puts them firmly on the other side.

[FJRider]

The majority don't agree with you.

I DONT care ... (few do) ... but until the legislation is changed ... Traffic Offenders they will be.

And obviously he believes that his actions are for him to decide, calling him names probably won't change that.

My actions are for me to decide. As ... he too is free to decide HIS ... (right up to the time he's caught) ...

Then .. it gets more expensive ...

And ... YOU started his name calling ...

And how many drunk drivers take much notice of that law?

How many of the fatalities and injuries occuring on our roads occured at below the speed limit? Fuck all.

See, nobody actually gives a fuck what the law says, they behave pretty much exactly as they choose. The fact that most choose to behave in ways that don't break many rules too often has nothing to do with the rules.

Enforcing rules that the majority don't agree with doesn't make them obedient wee pixies all of a sudden, it just puts them firmly on the other side.

[Scuba_Steve]

And they ARE there for the benefit and safety of ALL members of New Zealand society.

God I'm concerned you might actually believe the shit you are spouting there. The speed scam is NOT inforced for safety, merely money.

Hmmm, a lot of life is the same - minority 'causing' laws to be created - laws then expected to be obeyed by the majority...

Like drink-driving...

Majority think drink drive law is a good thing & obey it.
If it ever became 0 limit, thats when it'd be comparable to the speed scam. As it stands it is fine