I'm a grave menace to society

[Mekk]

I understand cause and effect perfectly. I'd have thought you'd realise that simply by noticing I'm not the one claiming that simply driving at a speed over and above a posted arbitrary speed limit automatically leads to death or injury.

Not automatically, but I've been over how that limit is set for the majority of road users. I mean it's fine if you're Rossi or whatever, but you cannot deny that travelling at a greater speed increases the risks of your ride.

Human reactions are not as good as so many people think they are, unfortunately.

[Max Preload]

Not automatically, but I've been over how that limit is set for the majority of road users. I mean it's fine if you're Rossi or whatever, but you cannot deny that travelling at a greater speed increases the risks of your ride.

Human reactions are not as good as so many people think they are, unfortunately.

Not surprisingly, I disagree. Driving at a speed higher than the posted limit does not increase risk any more than driving below that limit decreases risk.

What decreases risk is being observant and profiling other drivers on the road with you based on a large number of variables and taking appropriate actions (be that reducing or increasing your speed or any number of other things).

If the punishment for causing an crash was much worse than it currently is, and the level of practical driving skills and knowledge of the road rules required to obtain a license in the first place was higher that also would reduce risk. Regular retesting would have to be part of this so people don't slip into bad habits.

Low speed limits are merely damage limiting measures for when, not if, someone who probably shouldn't be on the road in the first place does something to further reinforce that fact. Remove those idiots and the risk drops.

Being a motorcyclist yourself I would have thought that the greatest risk to you is in fact other road users driving around in their cages completely oblivious to your presence on the road, isolated from the true conditions with sound proofing and a stereo, heating, traction control and a nonchalant attitude towards safety because they have 8 airbags ready to cushion their empty heads if they do happen to smack into something due to their own negligence - like say you.

Any fall at speed from a bike can be fatal but more so when it's as the result of a collision with another vehicle piloted by an indifferent idiot who "didn't see you".

[Jantar]

35% of all tickets issued (excluding speed and seatbelts) are for road safety in this district (IE: Overtaking on blind bends, stop signs, red lights, whatever...) It may differ in other areas, but I believe that is a national quota figure.......

But as speeding (excluding riding/driving outside conditions of licence) accounts for 50% of traffic infringement notices, this means that only 18% of tickets all issued are for road safety. So what are the other 82% of tickets issued for?

Obviously they are for revenue gathering.

Now Patrick, before you jump to the conclusion that I'm implying that the police somehow benefit from this revenue gathering... I'm not. Its treasury that benefits.

This quote is from Hon ANNETTE KING in response to a question in the house:

"I have done a lot of work on the issue. It is now apparent that the use of infringement notices and traffic offence notices-performance measures-was first introduced in 1997-98 in line with Treasury guidelines."

[scumdog]

But as speeding (excluding riding/driving outside conditions of licence) accounts for 50% of traffic infringement notices, this means that only 18% of tickets all issued are for road safety. So what are the other 82% of tickets issued for?

Obviously they are for revenue gathering.

:

ALL tickets are for revenue gathering...after all, except for compliance tickets they all cost somebody some money!

The fun is in avoiding said revenue collections....

[Jantar]

The fun is in avoiding said revenue collections....

Oh, so true.

[kiwifruit]

The fun is in avoiding said revenue collections....

[Mekk]

Not surprisingly, I disagree. Driving at a speed higher than the posted limit does not increase risk any more than driving below that limit decreases risk.

If a hazard comes into view faster than your reactions can respond to it, then there's your accident. Therefore driving faster means less time to react which means a higher risk of binning. This is basic physics.

What decreases risk is being observant and profiling other drivers on the road with you based on a large number of variables and taking appropriate actions (be that reducing or increasing your speed or any number of other things).

I agree, all that you have mentioned there does decrease risk.

Remove those idiots and the risk drops.

I agree entirely with that sentence. That's also why the limit is in place. It's not just damage control, it's reaction time and idiot control too.

Being a motorcyclist yourself I would have thought that the greatest risk to you is in fact other road users driving around in their cages completely oblivious to your presence on the road, isolated from the true conditions with sound proofing and a stereo, heating, traction control and a nonchalant attitude towards safety because they have 8 airbags ready to cushion their empty heads if they do happen to smack into something due to their own negligence - like say you.

No need to swing this personally, it isn't. The ad hominem fallacy doesn't further anything either.

I know the greatest risk to me is a cage, hence why I wouldn't want them to be able to go any faster and increase the risk to me. Which side are you on?

Any fall at speed from a bike can be fatal but more so when it's as the result of a collision with another vehicle piloted by an indifferent idiot who "didn't see you".

Yes, who has less of a chance to react to "seeing you" if you or they are speeding.

[rwh]

If a hazard comes into view faster than your reactions can respond to it, then there's your accident. Therefore driving faster means less time to react which means a higher risk of binning. This is basic physics.

That's true. But if you choose the right time and place, the chances of hazards coming into view in the first place are reduced. For instance, if you're travelling along the centre lane (ie neither the fast lane or the slow lane) of a straight section of motorway, with no other vehicles in sight, it would take a rather determined hazard to get into your way before you see it, even at 150.

And if it's something you didn't see because it's too small, well, at least you've got clear road to slide down, with no innocents in the way.

You're never going to get rid of the risk entirely, but there will always be occasions you can ride at greater than the speed limit with similar risk to situations that are considered perfectly normal and acceptable. And many of those situations should be quite obvious to a police observer.

Richard

[Kickaha]

The fun is in avoiding said revenue collections....

Not that hard to do

1 speeding ticket in the last 25 years and I haven't ever had any demerits, it's just a matter of picking the time and place

[Mekk]

That's true. But if you choose the right time and place, the chances of hazards coming into view in the first place are reduced. For instance, if you're travelling along the centre lane (ie neither the fast lane or the slow lane) of a straight section of motorway, with no other vehicles in sight, it would take a rather determined hazard to get into your way before you see it, even at 150.

And if it's something you didn't see because it's too small, well, at least you've got clear road to slide down, with no innocents in the way.

You're never going to get rid of the risk entirely, but there will always be occasions you can ride at greater than the speed limit with similar risk to situations that are considered perfectly normal and acceptable. And many of those situations should be quite obvious to a police observer.

Richard

That begs the question...where do you put the police? In the twisties?

I understand that Sanx's "maneuvre" was low risk, but it's not unreasonable to see why he was pinged in my opinion.

[Patrick]

I took this to mean that you were too busy giving out speeding tickets to deal with the other stuff that you see i.e. if you saw someone speeding and someone else dangerously overtaking at the same time you'd go after the speeding. My apologies if I misread what you said.

No worries, you were wrong, and quite wrong as above to assume speed would get the priority... stupid shit gets my interest every time.

Well, I wish it'd hurry up - the 19 years of motorcycling while waiting has been intense! I even tried helping it along by not owning a car until I was 27. What more could I do?

Hopefully it won't happen... it may not be your driving that you need to worry about... it could be the kid who steps out unseen in the dark, the black dog, someone misjudging your oncomiing speed, whatever...

But as speeding (excluding riding/driving outside conditions of licence) accounts for 50% of traffic infringement notices, this means that only 18% of tickets all issued are for road safety. So what are the other 82% of tickets issued for?

Huh? Where is this 18% figre from??? It is 35%, quota per copper...

[Jantar]

Huh? Where is this 18% figre from??? It is 35%, quota per copper...

OK so it isn't 18%, I was being generous, its closer to 16%. But it is just basic arithmetic based on your statement:

35% of all tickets issued (excluding speed and seatbelts) are for road safety in this district (IE: Overtaking on blind bends, stop signs, red lights, whatever...) It may differ in other areas, but I believe that is a national quota figure.
......

This data is from the MOT.

The total number of infringements and offences reported for 2006 was 1,411,251.

There were 740,120 speeding offences reported

So that means that there were 671,131 tickets issued excluding speed. I don't have the figure for seatbelts, so I will assume none. Of course as some would have been issued, that would decrease the number from 671,131 to some smaller number.

Now your claim is that 35% of these 671,131 tickets are for road safety, or nationally that would be 234,896 tickets issued for road safety. This equates to 16.6% of all tickets issued being for road safety. I was being generous, and if we allow that some tickets were issued for seat belt offences then the true value is probably 16%. So 84% of all tickets are not for road safety.

What are they for then?

[Swoop]

...so wherever this came from, it is wrong in that regard.

By clicking on the link it will take you to "wherever" this information came from.

[Patrick]

By clicking on the link it will take you to "wherever" this information came from.

Doesn't matter... It is wrong....

[Patrick]

OK so it isn't 18%, I was being generous, its closer to 16%. But it is just basic arithmetic based on your statement:



This data is from the MOT.





So that means that there were 671,131 tickets issued excluding speed. I don't have the figure for seatbelts, so I will assume none. Of course as some would have been issued, that would decrease the number from 671,131 to some smaller number.

Now your claim is that 35% of these 671,131 tickets are for road safety, or nationally that would be 234,896 tickets issued for road safety. This equates to 16.6% of all tickets issued being for road safety. I was being generous, and if we allow that some tickets were issued for seat belt offences then the true value is probably 16%. So 84% of all tickets are not for road safety.

What are they for then?

Your math is probably better than mine.....

Of all tickets I issue, 35% are to be for road safety. It is to be the same for all cops. Whether they reach these targets is unclear. The argument could also be that speed may be a safety issue?? "All infringements" would include speed, seatbelts, parking, licence breaches, WOF, Regos, whatever....

Do your part, stop speeding and really piss off all those coppers who can't get quota, which then flows uphill to his/her bosses, then to his/her bosses, then to his/her bosses etc etc...