I'm a grave menace to society

[scumdog]

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?

Yeah, he didn't get away with just a speeding ticket - but that's not the point.
The point is that there's way more cretins and incompetents on the road than you realise.

[Mekk]

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

Not a problem, I'm just quick to jump on people trying the old Ad Hominem trick with arguments. A lot of people resort to that and I try to weed them out before they get there. No biggie!

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.

That's not a bad thing and I agree, if you're able to prove that then you should be able to by all means. Unfortunately again, the courts will argue that the speed limit is in place to protect you based on this data and this blah blah.

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

I dunno about this. It's better than nothing, which (because of the huge amount of variables in each individual case relative to safety) would be the alternative.

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

Neither. I don't like reading signs that are a result of stupidity either, they're almost embarrassing. But yeah...one nation, one people and all that crap. We have to share the world with morons. It sucks, but it's just a fact of life really.

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

I dunno...am I?

I chop my veges privately though. I don't expect to share my kitchen with morons (except for my flatmates) either. Again, there's no speed limit on a private road.

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.

I'm of two minds for this. One the one hand, I believe in an eye for an eye and I agree, ping the fuckers when they mess up. On the other though, I don't want those people messing up with my family on the road. They're also unable to be punished when they're dead.

I see merits to both preventative policing and aftermath policing...the trouble is striking a balance that is effective enough for this society. Not an easy thing to do.

[Albino]

Yeah, he didn't get away with just a speeding ticket - but that's not the point.
The point is that there's way more cretins and incompetents on the road than you realise.

And the only thing you can do these incompetent cretins for is speeding?

[MSTRS:Me]

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

What is obvious is that because of the actions of a few, the rest of us 'suffer' retribution for ignoring often unrealistic limits.
Kinda like when the teacher kept your whole class in because someone put a drawing pin on his/her chair and 'no-one knew' who did it....

[MSTRS:Me]

Yeah, you may be right ...

Thanks for the flippant reminder....we all know they were hovering around 112kph at the time, don't we? Other factors played as great a part too.

[Edbear]

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..

Very true, very often! THough it's certainly not just women. I seem to see many drivers of any age or either gender who are obviously unaware of their speed in the roads up here!

Their speed is hopelessly inconsistent wavering 10km/h either way and as soon as they see the HP they brake, even if they're only doing 85km/h at the time - and often, even if the HP is on the other side of the motorway! (Or in one case, 45km/h on the open road!!!! The parked HP ignored the fact he was holding up 23 cars, too, and just watched us all crawl past).

It seems most driver's minds are anywhere but on their driving and this is, I believe, the main cause of accidents. Outright speed is rarely a problem up here as most drivers are well under the 100km/h but plainly incapable of driving around corners or keeping a consistent speed.

It is rare to see someone exceeding the limit up here even on the motorway and I'd like to see reports of the actual speed of the vehicles involved in fatal accidents. I doubt a big percentage were exceeding the limit...

[Ewan Oozarmy]

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.

Bang on mate!! And that's coming from a foreign licence holder.

None of this is rocket science yet it seems to be as far as the government are concerned. At the end of the day it's their resonsibility to serve and protect the public yet they seem to be burying their heads in the sand here.

[spudchucka]

What is obvious is that because of the actions of a few, the rest of us 'suffer' retribution for ignoring often unrealistic limits.
Kinda like when the teacher kept your whole class in because someone put a drawing pin on his/her chair and 'no-one knew' who did it....

Sucks aye, that's life though.

[Sanx]

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.

Correct, but with an emphasis on rigid enforcement of limits, regardless of whether or not people were driving to the conditions, and with a complete lack of driver education, how are people ever meant to learn?

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"?

They don't have to know that you are capable. They simply have to observe that you are (or not, as the case may be). Just because I don't run red lights doesn't mean I haven't got the ability to.

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.

And I'd disagree. I'm not sure I'm in favour of abolishing the speed limit, as has been sugested by others, but I'm certainly in favour of concentrating on bad driving - whatever form it takes - rather than rigid enforcement of rules. There's significant evidence from around the world that rigid speed-focused policing not only doesn't work, but it actively counter-productive. It's not a very popular opinion amongst Police or law-makers - as it reduces revenue - but occasionally you do get a senior official willing to stand up and declare the system flawed. An example is Paul Garvin, Chief Constable of County Durham Police in the UK. He's very publically stated that speed cameras and rigid enforcement do not work, and the accident statistics in his bailiwick would seem to back that up. It's not a small difference either; 43% lower than in comparable force areas.

I'm not necessarily saying the same would work in New Zealand. However, the current fatality and hospitalisation figures show the current policy simply does not work. Despite increases in road safety (don't laugh), massive increases in active and passive safety devices in cars and a huge increase in the number of tickets issued the road toll figures, which declined year on year from 1990 through 2001, have flat-lined. The ACC claims for injuries following traffic accidents have jumped 26% since the anti-speed policy began.

By anyone's reckoning, it just does not work.

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.

Conditions dictate safe speed. Speed limits do not. The first line of the first linked page reads "The single biggest road safety issue in New Zealand today is speed - drivers travelling too fast for the conditions". This does not correlate with the statement that people who break speed limits are endangering others. So, unless you want to claim that speed limits define a safe maximum speed in all conditions regardless of every other variable, you have to admit that that these comments contradict each other.

[Mekk]

Correct, but with an emphasis on rigid enforcement of limits, regardless of whether or not people were driving to the conditions, and with a complete lack of driver education, how are people ever meant to learn?

I personally believe the educated driver is capable of driving over 100Km/h safely in the right conditions. I don't believe the uneducated (I use this term loosely) is but we have to share the roads with these people and there has to be a cut off point somewhere.

The people who set the limit believe (through statistics) that is the safest speed for the majority of road users...probably just to account for the stupid and the mistakes of the wise, because realistically I would say no one is a good driver ALL the time. Look at fatigue, distractions etc.

They also think that anything over that limit becomes dangerous and not to the conditions of the road. Without being an engineer myself, I can't say whether they're right or not, but the limits are similar all over the world.

They don't have to know that you are capable. They simply have to observe that you are (or not, as the case may be). Just because I don't run red lights doesn't mean I haven't got the ability to.

Anyone can drive fast in a straight line. I don't understand how you would be able to properly monitor driver ability from the side of a stretch of road. That would be exceedingly difficult, I would have thought.

And I'd disagree. I'm not sure I'm in favour of abolishing the speed limit, as has been sugested by others, but I'm certainly in favour of concentrating on bad driving - whatever form it takes - rather than rigid enforcement of rules.

Fine for things like running reds and doing dangerous maneuvers in the city, but very hard to tell on a stretch of 100km/h road.

There's significant evidence from around the world that rigid speed-focused policing not only doesn't work, but it actively counter-productive. It's not a very popular opinion amongst Police or law-makers - as it reduces revenue - but occasionally you do get a senior official willing to stand up and declare the system flawed. An example is Paul Garvin, Chief Constable of County Durham Police in the UK. He's very publically stated that speed cameras and rigid enforcement do not work, and the accident statistics in his bailiwick would seem to back that up. It's not a small difference either; 43% lower than in comparable force areas.

I'm not necessarily saying the same would work in New Zealand. However, the current fatality and hospitalisation figures show the current policy simply does not work. Despite increases in road safety (don't laugh), massive increases in active and passive safety devices in cars and a huge increase in the number of tickets issued the road toll figures, which declined year on year from 1990 through 2001, have flat-lined. The ACC claims for injuries following traffic accidents have jumped 26% since the anti-speed policy began.

By anyone's reckoning, it just does not work.

Thanks for the article, it was a good read. I don't understand what you mean when you say that it's counter-productive though. There is no situation I can think of where driving faster would be safer.

I can understand possibly the notion of focusing on the road rather than the speedo but I'd like to see stats on the amount of accidents caused by that.

Conditions dictate safe speed. Speed limits do not. The first line of the first linked page reads "The single biggest road safety issue in New Zealand today is speed - drivers travelling too fast for the conditions". This does not correlate with the statement that people who break speed limits are endangering others. So, unless you want to claim that speed limits define a safe maximum speed in all conditions regardless of every other variable, you have to admit that that these comments contradict each other.

I agree, conditions dictate safe speed and a lot of us are able to judge the conditions and choose a speed to suit. That unfortunately does not remove the idiots from the road who cannot. The limit at least gives SOME control over those idiots.

I would contest also that the conditions it is referring to also include the road. Again, not being an engineer, I can't say what a safe speed for our roads is as I didn't design them. If you're travelling too fast for the road conditions, then the statements are fine and don't contradict because they're saying that speeds over 100Km/h are over what the road conditions are.

This is just my take on it, by the way. If you have evidence to show that the majority of roads are capable of handling over the speed limit while maintaining the same level of safety as driving at 100, then I'll happily revise my opinion.

[peasea]

My 2c:

I rode through some pretty thick fog in the Waikato a few weeks ago on my way to Taupo. At 80-90kph I was having trouble seeing what was what and I was often below 80k. I got passed my a couple of utes and a mum in a mini van, kids on board etc. Where do these goobers get off?

You must adjust your speed to suit the conditions no argument but IMHO if the revenue collectors would give more people a good talking to instead of ticketing arbitrarily some respect for the police in general might (just might) return.

I have to agree with earlier comments that
1) General crime doesn't rate too highly on the priority scale because it doesn't generate any revenue and
2) We need to pressure the govt to look at increasing the max speed in certain areas. I won't hold my breath on that one though, modern cars and bikes cruise at 115-120, so setting the limit at 100 is a sure cash earner. It's so easy to exceed 100 and they know it.

Road users are treated like ignorant, bottomless cash machines and the longer they are treated like idiots the longer they'll behave like that.

Take two kids the same age, call one an idiot for ten years and see how he ends up, educate the other one thoroughly and observe the difference.

There's nothing wrong with 120kph on some sections of road, in fine weather etc etc. but what the driver/rider needs to understand is that it's not safe to do 120 in all conditions on all roads.

You can make what you will of statistics but look at the LTNZ website and check out the number of deaths per 10,000 cars or 100,000 people and compare them to previous decades. The 2006 toll was the lowest in 46 years yet look at the volume of traffic!!!! While any death is tragic we're actually not the maniacs that the govt would have you believe. Sure they'll tell you that the blitz on speeding is working wonders and how good they are for fining our arses off but what they don't mention is the ability of cars/bikes/trucks to stop better, handle better and for the cars, the airbags must have made a difference.

There is also a (slightly) better system for obtaining driver's licenses. Its leaves a lot to be desired but it's better than it was.

This is lifted from the LTNZ site:

"Preliminary analysis shows that driving too fast for the conditions and drink-driving were the two biggest factors in fatal crashes last year, with excessive speed a factor in 30 percent and drink-driving contributing to 28 percent. Twenty-four percent of the vehicle occupants killed last year were not wearing seatbelts."

Three dumb things; Too fast for the conditions, pissed and no belt. How stupid can you get? Pulling 111 (or 112) on a state highway or motorway in fine conditions should just be ignored. If it's wet, then ok, ticket the dork and while 100kph is the legal limit I'm not the only one who thinks it's too slow.

It used to be law that blacks had to sit in the rear of a bus in Alabama; it was a dumb law and was changed through public pressure. We won't change anything by blathering on about it on KB.

It really pisses me off when you can't find a cop to attend a burglary or assault but they've got all freakin' day to scribble out tickets for exceeding the limit on a great piece of road.

Rant over, sorry about that.

[scumdog]

My 2c:


I have to agree with earlier comments that
1) General crime doesn't rate too highly on the priority scale because it doesn't generate any revenue and


How It really pisses me off when you can't find a cop to attend a burglary or assault but they've got all freakin' day to scribble out tickets for exceeding the limit on a great piece of road.

Rant over, sorry about that.

About (1) above - you obtained that 'fact' where?

Re the above: the Gov't has kinda re-invented the wheel.
Remember the 'good old days' when there were police and there were traffic cops? and how traffic cops never attended burglaries or assaults?

Well the only difference these days is the two sectors wear the same uniform etc.

Would you be happier if the two reverted to pre-'92 situation?

[MSTRS:Me]

Would you be happier if the two reverted to pre-'92 situation?

Every cop I've ever talked about this with would be.

[spudchucka]

I have to agree with earlier comments that
1) General crime doesn't rate too highly on the priority scale because it doesn't generate any revenue and


It really pisses me off when you can't find a cop to attend a burglary or assault but they've got all freakin' day to scribble out tickets for exceeding the limit on a great piece of road.

Rant over, sorry about that.

1: You are wrong but I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you.

Regarding burglary attendance and traffic cops. The traffic cops are ring fenced to perform their specific duties. The traffic branch receives funds from various outside agencies that all expect their pound of flesh for their money. That's why traffic cops won't be diverted to attend historic burglary complaints. However, they will divert to help out with burglaries that are happening now when there is a very good chance of catching an offender on the job.

There is a trial taking place at the moment that has been quite successful in reducing time delays for burglary attendance. It is being trialled in two districts at present and I have no doubt that it will be implemented nation wide in the next couple of years.

Basically it involves the complainant ringing a single non emergency number (SNEN) instead of 111 to report their historic burglary. All the offence report details are taken by a call centre and a job is created for a crime scene forensic specialist to attend. When they attend they check all the details of the offence, carry out area enquiries and complete whatever forensic examination that may be required. They then pass the file on to a burglary squad that does all the follow up with suspects etc.

It has been extremely successful in the pilot areas. Burglaries are usually attended within 24 hours. It has required significant investment by police to increase the numbers of Scene of Crime Officers that are required to cover the work load so don't tell me that general volume crime isn't a priority.

It has also taken about 30% of the previous workload away from the cops working the front line, which means they have more time to investigate all manner of other offences. It also however means that they have more time to police the roads and will be expected to do so.

[more_fasterer]

There is a trial taking place at the moment that has been quite successful in reducing time delays for burglary attendance. It is being trialled in two districts at present and I have no doubt that it will be implemented nation wide in the next couple of years.

Basically it involves the complainant ringing a single non emergency number (SNEN) instead of 111 to report their historic burglary. All the offence report details are taken by a call centre and a job is created for a crime scene forensic specialist to attend. When they attend they check all the details of the offence, carry out area enquiries and complete whatever forensic examination that may be required. They then pass the file on to a burglary squad that does all the follow up with suspects etc.

It has been extremely successful in the pilot areas. Burglaries are usually attended within 24 hours. It has required significant investment by police to increase the numbers of Scene of Crime Officers that are required to cover the work load so don't tell me that general volume crime isn't a priority.

It has also taken about 30% of the previous workload away from the cops working the front line, which means they have more time to investigate all manner of other offences. It also however means that they have more time to police the roads and will be expected to do so.

It is great to hear this from a currently serving Police officer. Strangely, it contradicts the comments from another currently serving Police officer which were (excuse the paraphrasing, I didn't have my dictaphone with me):

"I've recently moved from the beat to traffic, as there was so much paperwork involved in policing crimes such as burglaries that it became incredibly frustrating. Traffic seemed that much more enticing as it's easier to meet your performance targets with less time stuck at a desk."