I'm a grave menace to society

[swbarnett]

If you don't have rigid adherence, you may as well not have a limit at all.

Then why not rigidly enforce the other traffic laws? Why is speeding singled out for a higher level of enforcement?

Another thing, if it were revenue gathering, why even have a tolerance?

To fool the public into thinking that it's for safety?

Ever listened to question time on national radio? They ARE stupid and incredibly childish too.

There are certainly stupid ones just like any other sector of society. The ones that have the real power are probably not those. Their public face is probably quite different to what you'd see behind closed office doors.

[Mekk]

Then why not rigidly enforce the other traffic laws? Why is speeding singled out for a higher level of enforcement?

I would say because so many people do it. It would also be the result of research into the most important factors of crashes and of that which need addressing the most.

Besides, if this is like any of the other biker forums, I'm sure it's full of people who have been "hard-done" by the law. There'll be people annoyed at noise restrictions, people annoyed at being pinged for pulling stoppies at intersections, people annoyed at not getting a warning when they deserved an infraction etc.

If you don't think the law is being "rigidly" upheld in other areas, just look at the other posts here!

I'd like a cop at some intersections due to the red light issue...but then people would bitch that they're too rigidly enforcing that, they should be "doing real crime" etc etc. There is absolutely no winning.

Issues only become important if they happen to the individual. How many posts are started about someone else they don't know being pinged? How many responses? If there were any, I'd say they'd be laughing at the guy who got done and how stupid he was.

To fool the public into thinking that it's for safety?

If this is some sort of elaborate conspiracy theory, they've done a bang up job of keeping all the competing government parties, all the police and ex-police, all the government workers and volunteers quiet on the issue.

If I were John Key I'd want as much dirt on Labour as I could get. It seems highly unrealistic that they would let that one slide or that they wouldn't know if it were a conspiracy.

Anyway, the speed limit has spanned several governments. The tolerance hasn't, but the 20km/h over the limit was ridiculous and abused as well.

[Jantar]

I would say because so many people do it. It would also be the result of research into the most important factors of crashes and of that which need addressing the most.

Then you would be wrong. Exceeding the speed limit is a cause in only a very crashes. Depending on whose figures you believe its around 5% of crashes. Speeding, as defined by "Driving too fast for the conditions" is a causal factor in around 30% of crashes, but that is seldom ticketed. Exceeding the speed limit is quoted by MOT and LTSA as the GER or Greatest Enforceable Risk, as although it is a small risk, it is the easiest to measure. Look at http://www.safeas.govt.nz/smf/ for discussion with the MOT on this topic.

Besides, if this is like any of the other biker forums, I'm sure it's full of people who have been "hard-done" by the law. There'll be people annoyed at noise restrictions, people annoyed at being pinged for pulling stoppies at intersections, people annoyed at not getting a warning when they deserved an infraction etc.

This time you are right. However most riders who are ticketed when they are not being careful seem to admit that they deserved it.

If you don't think the law is being "rigidly" upheld in other areas, just look at the other posts here!

Again, you are right. Most posts concerning policing on offences other than speed would agree with you that the law is not being rigidly enforced in other areas.

I'd like a cop at some intersections due to the red light issue...but then people would bitch that they're too rigidly enforcing that, they should be "doing real crime" etc etc. There is absolutely no winning.

Wrong. Have a look at http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...ad.php?t=48226

Issues only become important if they happen to the individual. How many posts are started about someone else they don't know being pinged? How many responses? If there were any, I'd say they'd be laughing at the guy who got done and how stupid he was.

There are a large number of posts about policing and road safety in general. However you are partially right in that for most people their own experience is the best indicator.

If this is some sort of elaborate conspiracy theory, they've done a bang up job of keeping all the competing government parties, all the police and ex-police, all the government workers and volunteers quiet on the issue.

If I were John Key I'd want as much dirt on Labour as I could get. It seems highly unrealistic that they would let that one slide or that they wouldn't know if it were a conspiracy.

I don't know where this idea of conspiracy theory comes from, can you elaborate more on where this was raised? Or is it just a straw man argument?

Anyway, the speed limit has spanned several governments. The tolerance hasn't, but the 20km/h over the limit was ridiculous and abused as well.

Another strawman? When was there ever a 20kmh tolerance?

[swbarnett]

I would say because so many people do it.

And so many people don't stop for red lights either. Why does speed get the priority?

It would also be the result of research into the most important factors of crashes and of that which need addressing the most.

Research that has been shown as flawed. It seems clear to me that speed is not the number one cause of accidents or a major drain on the health system.

Besides, if this is like any of the other biker forums, I'm sure it's full of people who have been "hard-done" by the law.

I Haven't seen much of that over the past year.

Issues only become important if they happen to the individual.

I haven't had a ticket for anything since 2000. Speed limits still piss me off.

If this is some sort of elaborate conspiracy theory, they've done a bang up job of keeping all the competing government parties, all the police and ex-police, all the government workers and volunteers quiet on the issue.

Maybe not at the top level. I forget where but one of the US states has actually said that speed enforcement is for revenue in a recent draft of a new law.

If I were John Key I'd want as much dirt on Labour as I could get.

At the same time they don't want to stop the gravy train for when they get in to power.

Anyway, the speed limit has spanned several governments.

They all like their gravy train.

The tolerance hasn't, but the 20km/h over the limit was ridiculous and abused as well.

Tolerance isn't a big issue to me. If you're going to have a law it should be enforced. You've just got to make damn sure that the law is fair and equitable and actually addresses the issue that it is designed for.

[Edbear]

...When was there ever a 20kmh tolerance?

It may have been when it was publicly stated they'd be targetting the "top 15 percentile" when speed cameras were introduced? Then I think it was lowered to 15km/h over, then 9km/h. I stand to be corrected, though.

[Max Preload]

I would say because so many people do it. It would also be the result of research into the most important factors of crashes and of that which need addressing the most.

If that were really true they'd not be solely hammering 'speeding' which has been shown time and time again to not be a major factor in the majority of crashes.

Besides, if this is like any of the other biker forums, I'm sure it's full of people who have been "hard-done" by the law. There'll be people annoyed at noise restrictions, people annoyed at being pinged for pulling stoppies at intersections, people annoyed at not getting a warning when they deserved an infraction etc.

Nobody *likes* getting a ticket. But the fact speed is targeted without consideration to other mitigating factors (location, traffic volume, road conditions etc) makes it pure revenue collection. There is no arguing that.

If you don't think the law is being "rigidly" upheld in other areas, just look at the other posts here!

But it isn't.

I'd like a cop at some intersections due to the red light issue...but then people would bitch that they're too rigidly enforcing that, they should be "doing real crime" etc etc. There is absolutely no winning.

I can't remember the last time someone passing me at 120km/h made me the slightest bit worried. But cars running reds happens all the time and it does warrant reflection on mortality - it's not going to make the slightest bit of difference to me as a motorcylist if they t-bone me at 50km/h or 61km/h.

Issues only become important if they happen to the individual.

See above.

If this is some sort of elaborate conspiracy theory, they've done a bang up job of keeping all the competing government parties, all the police and ex-police, all the government workers and volunteers quiet on the issue.

If I were John Key I'd want as much dirt on Labour as I could get. It seems highly unrealistic that they would let that one slide or that they wouldn't know if it were a conspiracy.

He's still a politician. The brainwashed public would think he was reckless if he increased the speed limit. And if he toughened licensing they'd feel victimised - it's their right to drive poorly as long as they stay within the speed limit, you know - they think that's all that matters.

Anyway, the speed limit has spanned several governments. The tolerance hasn't, but the 20km/h over the limit was ridiculous and abused as well.

Meanwhile, you're stopped at the side of the road writing out a ticket for some poor schmuck caught at 111km/h on the motorway at 2am Monday morning instead of biding your time and waiting for the worst offenders, who simply don't drive to the conditions.

[Jantar]

It may have been when it was publicly stated they'd be targetting the "top 15 percentile" when speed cameras were introduced? Then I think it was lowered to 15km/h over, then 9km/h. I stand to be corrected, though.

Yes, speed cameras were originally supposed to target the top 15 percentile of speeders, but there was no set speed given. In some areas that top percentile was only 5 kmh above the limit, and it was soon found that no matter what speed was set the cameras were getting a lot more than the fastest 15% of ALL drivers, not just the speeders.

[MSTRS:Me]

When was there ever a 20kmh tolerance?

I don't believe there was....in the days of MPH, 5mph (at 55 or 60mph) was accepted as being within speedo-error guidelines. This translated to 8kph but settled on 10kph. Anything over that was given over to the individual cop's discretion, something that is now missing due to rigid 'guidelines' out of Bullshit Castle....

[Mekk]

Then you would be wrong. Exceeding the speed limit is a cause in only a very crashes. Depending on whose figures you believe its around 5% of crashes. Speeding, as defined by "Driving too fast for the conditions" is a causal factor in around 30% of crashes, but that is seldom ticketed. Exceeding the speed limit is quoted by MOT and LTSA as the GER or Greatest Enforceable Risk, as although it is a small risk, it is the easiest to measure. Look at http://www.safeas.govt.nz/smf/ for discussion with the MOT on this topic.

Returning to the realistic issue, you must understand that you cannot put an accurate speed limit on every piece of road that covers all weather and all times. Therefore, the limit is set. If cops removed the limit and just started ticketing people for driving faster than the conditions, people would still bitch. In fact probably more so because it would come down to discretion. Driver vs cop, not driver vs established limit.

People would be pinged for going 90 on the open road in the wet and they would howl with rage.

112km/h was probably perfectly safe but it's no safer than travelling at the limit. I have been over reaction times and all that, I don't think elaboration is necessary.

Forgive me but I don't remember what your position was for the solution of this.

-

Again, you are right. Most posts concerning policing on offences other than speed would agree with you that the law is not being rigidly enforced in other areas.

I think you misread my position on that. I'm saying that people will only think that the law is being rigidly (or not) upheld when it happens to them. With that, the rigigidigiittggyty of the law is based a lot on public perception, not actual knowledge.

Wrong. Have a look at http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...ad.php?t=48226

Again, this is only due to the perception of an isolated incident. A perception that obviously differs from the officer's also.

However you are partially right in that for most people their own experience is the best indicator.

I am saying that for most people their own experience is the ONLY indicator. Which is why threads like this form. I'm trying to form an objective opinion on the matter.

I don't know where this idea of conspiracy theory comes from, can you elaborate more on where this was raised? Or is it just a straw man argument?

It was referenced by swbarnett in saying that the limit is only there to fool th e public. Admittedly, it was slightly strawman in emphasising the impact of the statement but I think that is what he was getting at. Is anything that widespread in fooling the public by the government...not considered a conspiracy? I used the word elaborate also because it would not be an easy task.

Another strawman? When was there ever a 20kmh tolerance?

Not at all. I was using that from a post further up that scumdog did. I assumed because he is an authority on such matters that the knowledge was sound.

I'll reply to the others later, I'm late for work.

[spudchucka]

This thread is becoming too much of a pain in the arse to read any more with the number of multi quote posts.

But, people seem to be hung up on how many crashes excess speed is responsible for causing, which is only a minor part of the overall equation. The real problem is in reducing the trauma caused in crashes, not so much stopping the crashes from happening.

People will always crash, even if you restricted them to 20KPH there would still be some moron that couldn't stay on the road.

The speed limits are enforced because speed has a direct tangible correlation to trauma in crashes. Its not just about the death toll, the impact on society from road crash trauma is massive and that is the sum total of why speed limits are enforced.

Carry on with your BS theorising though, most of you wouldn't know the truth if it jumped out and kicked you in the jatz crackers.

[MSTRS:Me]

None of us are questioning the correlation between speed and damage/injury/death in the event of a crash...just the current regime that makes no distinction of speed subject to varying conditions. eg. a deserted 3 lane motorway at night as compared to a one lane country highway with oncoming traffic

[skidMark]

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.

so hang on...you were riding an 07 blade....and you bothered to stop?

the speedo goes to 300 for a good reason u know....

[Ocean1]

If cops removed the limit and just started ticketing people for driving faster than the conditions, people would still bitch. In fact probably more so because it would come down to discretion. Driver vs cop, not driver vs established limit.

As a matter of interest when did we lose the LSZ thing.
I don't recall pingings there ever causing too much argument it court.
Remind me what the deal was there, still an open road limit but an expectation to drive to the conditions? On one hand it gives the oshifers more leaway and discression but on the other hand (again) it's open to interpretation (and therefore abuse on both parts).

[swbarnett]

The speed limits are enforced because speed has a direct tangible correlation to trauma in crashes.

What is important in trauma reduction is the speed of impact, not the speed of travel prior to braking. The speed of impact is governed by a lot more, namely the effectiveness of the brakes, tyre grip, suspension set up and condition, vehicle weight, reaction time, angle of impact and probably many others. Also, the trauma level at any given speed of impact will vary widely depending on the safety features in the vehicle (air bags and the like).

The police estimate of the speed prior to an accident is probably wrong most of the time anyway. In these days of ABS etc. skid marks are no longer an accurate measure (not that they ever were).

[swbarnett]

LSZ - Remind me what the deal was there,

Open road unless certain conditions existed (pedestrians, weather, ...) then it was 70km/h or maybe even 50km/h.