I'm a grave menace to society

[Max Preload]

You miss the point.

You haven't made one. Your ridiculous claim is that stupid people killing themselves justifies targeting speed. It doesn't. It justifies removing licences from people who are bad drivers. Rarely is it speed alone that makes someone a bad driver.

[Sanx]

Link speed with the previously mentioned bone headed retards that use the roads and the answer is obvious ... You miss the point.

No dude, I think you are. The current targetting of speed above everything else was made in response to a government aim to bring the road toll down to 300 by 2010. The Mad Mullahs of Wellington seem to think that speed is the root of all evil and by stopping people speeding, the road toll will fall.

Except it won't. And it hasn't. The current policy was started in 2002 and the previous year-on-year progressive fall in the road toll abruptly halted. It's wiggled a bit since then, including last year's record low figure, but this year seems well on the way to beating it.

The government and the LTSA like to parrot that speed is the cause of 30% of all accidents. But that's fuck-all to do with going faster than the speed limit. The MoT and LTSA even admit this: clicky clicky. Both linked articles state that accidents are caused by going to fast for the conditions and, as has been argued many a time, an appropriate speed for the conditions rarely has little in common with a speed limit. Just look at the contradictory statements here (from the first article):

Judge the safe speed for the conditions
When you're driving, you need to be constantly judging the safe speed for the stretch of road you're on at that particular time. This is called driving to the conditions. If you don't adjust your speed to suit the conditions, you may be driving too fast, even if you're within the speed limit.

Keep inside the speed limit
Drivers who travel above the speed limit endanger the lives of others. We've all heard the saying 'Speed kills'. Higher speeds result in injuries that are more severe.

On one hand, drivers are expected to adjust their speed according to the conditions. Use common sense, in other words. And then, in the very next paragraph, the LTSA come out with "travel above the speed limit endanger the lives of others". Unmitigate steaming piles of rotten bovine faeces. The drivers endangering others are those travelling at a speed unsuitable for the conditions, as stated in the very first sentence on the page.

None of this stops retards driving; that's a job for the government who can take away automatic right to drive in NZ for foreign-licence holders, toughen up the practical driving test and introduce compulsory re-testing every few years. But some instruction from on high for the Police to concentrate on bad driving (and that includes inappropriate speed) rather than simple limit-breaches would prove far more beneficial to the road toll. Just not quite as lucrative.

[swbarnett]

no.. no.. NO!!!

I like what i say and say what i like.. YOU mis quoted me numpty.

1 Timothy 6:10 -

"For the love of money is the root of every evil"

(BTW: I'm not religious, just full of useless trivia and love Google)

[boomer]

1 Timothy 6:10 -

"For the love of money is the root of every evil"

(BTW: I'm not religious, just full of useless trivia and love Google)

that'd go down a treat every time i wanted use that saying.. can u imagine down the pub ... and out i spout with..... " 1 Timothy 6:10..."

i'd have less mates than i've got now

[scumdog]

I'm pretty sure there's nobody posting here who has died from crashing, but I'm prepared to be corrected.

Yeah, you may be right - I'll get those who go on the memorial ride for deceased KB members to ask them why they don't post - I believe at least a couple are no longer with us due to crashing...

[Mekk]

If it's not practical to protect the innocent on a day to day basis then let there be a recourse in the courts.

You seem to be making me out to be some sort of human hater which is odd, considering I was merely speculating on the probable reasons the system is in place.

It is not practical with current technology to protect the innocent in the manner you're demanding. The speed limit is a more practical solution for now.

And yet we don't manage millions of road users as it is. We aren't watched every minute we drive (and neither should we be).

Are you suggesting there's no reason for policing of the roads? Us against the cages...no thanks.

And driving at or under the speed limit doesn't make you any safer either.

Logic tells us that driving at a slower speed means you have more time to react to any hazards or problematic situations. With that I would contest that driving slower would make you safer. I say you in a general manner meant for the general populace, not you specifically. You may be Casey Stoner for all I know.

He didn't. This was the point of the movie - how he got penalised regardless.

I guess I missed that theme, apologies.

Then don't. We don't monitor millions of people to see if they might murder someone.

Millions of people don't have hand weapons either, but the ones that do aren't allowed them in a public place without a bloody good reason. Again, are you suggesting that policing the roads should be abolished?

Why should we be constantly monitored? I have a moral right to take whatever risks I like when the only person remotely likely to suffer from the consequences is myself.

I agree entirely which is why there are no speed limits or monitoring on private roads. Go nuts.

I don't like being monitored either but I would personally rather put up with that at the risk of being fined etc than to have no monitoring and sharing the roads with fuckwits who are much more likely to kill me.

Younguns are bulletproof, remember? They can go whatever speed they want and be perfectly safe!

[scumdog]

As is the case with every other charge I can think of except the instant fines. I have a moral if not legal right to defend myself in court.



You may find (as has been illustrated elsewhere) that drivers find their own speed, some high, some low and on the most part they will be competent at that speed.

(1) You have 'a moral if not legal right to defend' yourself - regardless if you're guilty?????? For what reason? Just 'cos you can???

(2) Mwahahahaha! Imagine the chaos, the speedygonzales whinging their arses off because those wanting to drive at 90kph are preventing them cruising at 140kph!! And 'competent'?? (picks self off the floor after collapsing from laughing too much) competent? Is that some kind of camping equipment?
Cos it sure as hell ain't something seen on the roads too often - at any speed.

Ah well..........

[inlinefour]

Yes, I admit it. I'm a killer. OK, I haven't killed anyone yet, but it's obviously only a matter of time before my thoroughly irresponsible and unacceptable behaviour results in the deaths of some poor tax-paying member of society.

Midnight on the north-western, traffic's light and the conditions dry. I was pulled over by a marked car with a laser gun and given a ticket for the heinous crime against humanity of doing 112kph. $80 and twenty demerits. I was the picture of politeness. I pulled over immediately on seeing their lights, I had my licence out ready and waiting, I was friendly. Not the slightest hint of a warning, just a 'please stay here sir, I'll just go and write you out a ticket.'

What a complete crock of shit. I'm going to challenge it anyway (as I was doing 105 according to my speedo) and the officer's managed to get my address wrong on the ticket. Pointless, but at least they'll have to do some work for their $80.

Still, it's taught me a good lesson. The next time this happens (provided I'm on my bike, which tonight I wasn't), I'm just going to gap it. According to the laser gun, I was 184 metres away when I was pinged. By my rough calculations, I could be doing well over 200kph by the time I passed the cop car and unless they can scramble a heli damn fast, they've got about as much chance of catching me as I have getting off this ticket.

Well done, NZ Police, here's another perfectly safe driver you've just fucked off.

Dude, I doubt that their laser gun would be off, but it could be. More likely your speedo is out, but hard to tell unless its checked. I'd suspect that your challenge will be a waste of time, because yes the 5 o can tell porkies, but there could be a chance that you was doing what they say? No point having a cow over it anyhow, might just give you an ulcer or stroke. Just be like the rest of us, let it go and pay Aunty Helen's tax collecters...

[Mekk]

Judge the safe speed for the conditions
When you're driving, you need to be constantly judging the safe speed for the stretch of road you're on at that particular time. This is called driving to the conditions. If you don't adjust your speed to suit the conditions, you may be driving too fast, even if you're within the speed limit.

Keep inside the speed limit
Drivers who travel above the speed limit endanger the lives of others. We've all heard the saying 'Speed kills'. Higher speeds result in injuries that are more severe.

Problem is, "driving to the conditions" is a subjective argument. The limit is there because a lot of morons don't know how to drive to the conditions or are unable to correctly assess the conditions. Besides, going over the speed limit isn't safer than going under it, people lose control a lot easier at higher speeds. That and the damage is obviously going to be more severe at higher speeds.

Maybe we could get a big plate like our learners certifying you a registered person who can drive to the conditions. It could be a giant W for winner or something. But seriously, how are the cops gonna know if you can drive to the conditions or not? What about someone that can drive to the conditions but is tired and thus impaired? What about someone who is on their cellphone while "driving to the conditions"?

I'd definitely say the speed limit is a form of lowering the pain the retards are causing. As I said above, there's this all throughout society... I mean the craft glue bottle warns of eating it...why? Because some fuck at some stage probably tried.

Attack the rule-makers, not the enforcers.

For the record, those two paragraphs don't contradict themselves. It says adjust your speed to the conditions...I'd say it's meaning within the speed limit. I cannot reasonably see any way that going faster than the speed limit would improve your safety or be "more" to the conditions than not.

[Mekk]

competent? Is that some kind of camping equipment?
Cos it sure as hell ain't something seen on the roads too often - at any speed.

Ah well..........

Yeah, they always sell out of competent in central Auckland, it's rare and pricey to get a hold of.

[Mekk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit

That's a very interesting article too. 4mph in the country and 2mph in town for 1865...sorta defeats the purpose when you can walk faster than a car.

Otherwise the article has some interesting points on why they're set at the limits they are.

[swbarnett]

(1) You have 'a moral if not legal right to defend' yourself - regardless if you're guilty?????? For what reason? Just 'cos you can???

(2) Mwahahahaha! Imagine the chaos, the speedygonzales whinging their arses off because those wanting to drive at 90kph are preventing them cruising at 140kph!! And 'competent'?? (picks self off the floor after collapsing from laughing too much) competent? Is that some kind of camping equipment?
Cos it sure as hell ain't something seen on the roads too often - at any speed.

Ah well..........

(1) Under NZ law I have a right to defend myself in court, guilty or not, for everything except instant fines. If the speeding laws were truly about safety I'd have the same right there as well.

(2) How many millions of kms are driven in NZ every day? The vast majority of them without incident. Having a speed limit tells drivers that they are safe at that speed regardless. Without them drivers won't be lulled into this false sense of security.

[scumdog]

(2) Having a speed limit tells drivers that they are safe at that speed regardless. Without them drivers won't be lulled into this false sense of security.

Like the guy doing 80 in a 50 area in thick fog - or the dozens that are genuinely shocked when they find out what speed they actually were doing.

People just don't pay attention to what speed they are doing (especially women) and it's only the thought 'ooh, I might get a ticket' that makes them bother to be aware of their speed.

I know this from first hand experience, not from 'thinking' what other people should be thinking.

[swbarnett]

You seem to be making me out to be some sort of human hater which is odd, considering I was merely speculating on the probable reasons the system is in place.

Sorry if this seems personal, it's not meant to be.

It is not practical with current technology to protect the innocent in the manner you're demanding.

All I'm asking is that I get the chance to present evidence that refutes the claim that what I was doing was a menace to society.

The speed limit is a more practical solution for now.

But it's not a solution. It's worse than that. It allows the politicians to claim they're doing something.

Are you suggesting there's no reason for policing of the roads? Us against the cages...no thanks.

No, but I don't want to be watched every minute either.

Logic tells us that driving at a slower speed means you have more time to react to any hazards or problematic situations.

I totally agree. This is driving to the conditions. 120km/h on a clear, dry day is a lot safer than 80km/h in thick fog. You don't need speed limits to police this.

Millions of people don't have hand weapons either, but the ones that do aren't allowed them in a public place without a bloody good reason.

Checked your kitchen lately? Are you constantly watched while you're chopping the veges?

Again, are you suggesting that policing the roads should be abolished?

Yes and no. Ideally I'd rather go to a retroactive model. Let the accidents happen and then throw the book at anyone deemed to be at fault. Kind of like what we do for most other aspects of life.

[swbarnett]

Like the guy doing 80 in a 50 area in thick fog.

I agree that this element also exists. Do you need speed limits to deal with the problem. Surely 80km/h in a built up area in thick fog would merit at least a careless driving charge?