Naked revenue gathering

June 3rd, 2010 at 10:06 am by David Farrar

The Dom Post reports:

Speeding motorists used to driving 10kmh over the maximum speed limit will not get away with it this weekend, as trial a zero tolerance policy to cut road deaths.

Police say New Zealand’s 10 per cent tolerance zone is higher than other countries, and cutting it could help change the attitudes of motorists who claim lives.

How many road deaths are caused by people driving at 56 km/hr in a 50 zone? Or 106 kmhr on a multi-lane motorway?

This is naked revenue gathering, which will see thousands of people fined for driving just over the speed limit, unaware that the tolerance has been lowered.

I supported a lowered tolerance around school buses and crossings. There t makes sense. Hell I tend to slow down to 30 km/hr around a school bus or crossing.

But a blanket lowering of the tolerance is about meeting ticket and/or revenue quotas.

The Automobile Association predicts the move will anger motorists unaware of the change, or driving with inaccurate speedometers.However, as another life was lost on our roads yesterday, national road policing manager Superintendent Paula Rose said police needed new weapons to change driver behaviour. “There can be no excuses. We are killing our people and we want it to stop.”

Bullshit. policy is a balance between safety and convenience. If the only focus was the road toll, then we would simply have a law requiring all vehicles to be fitted with a device that limits the maximum speed to 30 km/hr.

What I want to hear from the Police is the research they have done to conclude that lowering the threshold (which has been in place for around 30+ years) will be effective.

AA motoring affairs manager Mike Noon agreed that roads had to be made safer, but said the tolerance existed to allow for speedometer error, which could occur when motorists changed their tyres.

Speedometers were not checked during warrant tests and it would be difficult for motorists to measure such small speed differences.

To keep within the zone, they could end up spending more time on the wrong side of the road while passing, so police would need to enforce the change carefully, Mr Noon said.

The Police don’t eve use discretion any more for people passing slow moving traffic, even though it is basically impossible to do it legally. If a vehicle is driving at 90 km/hr, you will need two kms of clear road to safely pass them without exceeding 100 km/hr.

I am dismayed that once again changes are being made to road safety enforcement, that is not backed up by research showing this is a problem area. The Government is going for the easy targets, not the effective ones.

First they banned cellphones in cars, despite the research showing other distractions cause more accidents.

Secondly they seem highly likely to lower the blood alcohol limit from 0.08 to 0.05 despite the research showing only one death from drivers aged over 25 with a blood level between 0.05 and 0.08.

And now they have decided that the real problems out there are the motorists going 5 km/hr hour over the posted speed limit, who must be fined and demerited. Despite the fact I can guarantee you the number of accidents caused by people driving 5 km/hr over the speed limit on straight roads is minimal.

And what is the bet that if these measures don’t work, we will be told then even more measures are needed.

Tags: ,

83 Responses to “Naked revenue gathering”

  1. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    The issue of schools is one that has actually been missrepresnted as well. In reality very very few children are struck by cars outside schools and when they are the car is often not traveling very fast.

    If you’ve every driven a school bus you’ll know that the single most dangerous element at schools and school crossings is parents in 4X4′s dropping of their little darlings who are too precious to walk 100 meters from when they can be dropped with causing an obstruction to traffic.

    That the police tried to over play their hand on that one as well is suspect. Crossing the centerline is another questionable issue. The police are including accidents caused by other taking in the “corssing the centre line” stats, which may be tecnically true, but is missleading.

    This 10k’s thing is just the latest in a series of measures that does nothing but gather money under the guize of making us safer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. flipper (3,563 comments) says:

    Is it not time that we asked Police: “And your referencesd are ?”
    No Bull shit
    No obfuscation
    No paTSY JURNOS TOO AFRAID THEY WILL LOSE A SOURCE IF THEY ASK THESD PROPER Q

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Eddie (295 comments) says:

    Well I hope the converse is policed as well, fuckwits that travel at 70-80km in 100km zones.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    “There can be no excuses. We are killing our people and we want it to stop.”

    We? Rubbish. People are killing themselves. Always have. Always will. No amount of increased state intervention into our daily lives will stop that.

    And what is the bet that if these measures don’t work, we will be told then even more measures are needed.

    Welcome to moden socialism David.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Kiwi Poll Guy (22 comments) says:

    > Hell I tend to slow down to 30 km/hr around a school bus or crossing.

    I thought the limit was 20km/h when overtaking a parked school bus?

    > The Police don’t eve use discretion any more for people passing slow moving traffic, even though it is basically impossible to do it legally. If a vehicle is driving at 90 km/hr, you will need two kms of clear road to safely pass them without exceeding 100 km/hr.

    That’s ridiculous. They are effectively banning overtaking. What’s worse is that I would be okay with the strict 100km/h limit if only the police would enforce the rest of the road code, specifically the two rules that say

    1. Keep left unless passing.
    2. If holding up traffic you must pull over and let them through. In other words, the burden falls on slow-moving traffic to let the fast-moving traffic backed up behind them through.

    These two are already in the road code, but when was the last time you heard somebody get a ticket or even a warning for holding up traffic? How often has everybody been caught behind a caravan on winding roads doing 80km/h in a 100km/h zone where it takes 10~15min to get around them!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Eddie (295 comments) says:

    Welcome to squeezed policing budgets.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Monty (964 comments) says:

    I would encourage every person who gets a ticket for speeding between 4km and 10km over the limit write a letter to the minister asking a whole bunch of frivilous questions such as “please advise all the reveue gathered from speeding tickets in the past 5 years broken down by year.” or How many accidencts have been reported where the cause is people driving over the speed limt between 4 and 10 km over the limit”

    I am sure people can make up their own. The little people who work in the Government Departments will then no longer come up with such stupid schemes to increase revenue as they will get sick of their minister answering stupid questions.

    At Christmas I received a ticket for going 10km over the limit – cost $30. I was towing – in a stream of heavy traffic keeping up with the pace of the traffic. The cop had to find a space safe to turn around, and then overtake a lot of cars – he finall caught up to me 25 minutes later. total time involved probably 45 minutes. All for $30. The fool. I asked why and he said we are ticketing everyone going 10km over the limit – because I was towing i got caught. – but what a wasted effort for $30.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    Towed speed limit is lower than untowed monty. you were exceeding the speed limit by more than those around you. Same for large vehicles.

    Og couse this is obvious because all trucks travel at 90 ks right… right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. ben (2,396 comments) says:

    The Police say they will not tolerate deaths on roads.

    I’d like to know whether the police are aware of the concept of live value and the implied constraint it sets on their activity.

    Police seem to have a “more is better” view of policing, without any discernable limit.

    So how much more draconian will things get? Will the limit be made 4km/h over permanently? Then 0. Then reduced tolerance for drink drive limits. Then zero. Then how about carless days once a year. Then twice. And so on.

    I say: we will not tolerate a bureaucracy that is in love with its own power and out of control.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. cabbage (454 comments) says:

    The problem isn’t with people doing 10 or even 20 km/h over the limit, the problem is with sheeple who fail to keep left, fail to indicate, and generally think that their little bubble is the ONLY relevant thing on the road.

    I noted the disgust the police displayed in the dom post the other day with people crossing the centreline in the manawatu gorge. I drive roads like this everyday and it never fails to amaze me how people can consistently drive slowly and under the speed limit and yet are NOT ABLE to keep to their own lane!

    Yesterday whilst commuting through pukerua bay, there was a red convertable capri waiting in the merging lane by the dairy to get into the flow of thraffic. Now there was a sizeable gap behind me and with a little forethought and attentiion this muppet could quite safely merge in behind me. Instead, Mr asleep decided to wait until i was well past him to engage gear, and then with no lights on, and no indication, proceeded to crawl out infront of a B-Train at a speed at about half that of the flow of traffic (40km/h). Only once the B-Train had engaged an emergency braking procedure did this muppet decide to engage brain and put his boot into it.

    The problem is people seem to have zero ability these days to scan everything thats happening around them – in front, beside and behind at the same time.

    Quite simply, I don’t believe that half of our population has the cognitive skills necessary to pilot ANY vehicle safely on our roads. I really, really beleive that a cognitive test should be a part of the licensing procedure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. davidp (3,540 comments) says:

    This calls out for a campaign of civil disobedience. If you’re following a police car that exceeds the limit, even by 1 or 2 km/hr, then pull over and report it. Ring the emergency number and say that you’ve just witnessed a crime being comitted. If every police vehicle in the country was being reported several times a day then they’d have to start using common sense rather than resorting to punishment for exceeding arbitrary limits.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Manolo (13,375 comments) says:

    Why isn’t the Minister of Police Collins having a strong-worded discussion with Howard Broad instructing him to stop this inane campaign?

    While crocks have a field day assaulting, robbing, maiming and killing, the NZ Police spends its time ticketing law-abiding citizens. A sad joke!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Sonny Blount (1,845 comments) says:

    The police need to produce a budget that is balanced without including any revenue from ticketing before they have any credible defence against accusations of revenue gathering.

    Parking and speeding fines are part of the tax take.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Crampton (214 comments) says:

    Do I get a ticket if I lay on the horn the entire time I’m behind somebody doing 80 in a 100 zone if he refuses to yield and I can’t safely overtake at <104 kph? How about if I use the anti-slow-moving-vehicle-that-refuses-to-yield missile I've recently had installed?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. big bruv (13,311 comments) says:

    As one who spends a fair bit of time on the road I have no problem at all if the cops enforce the speed limit, I think this is a great move and one that is long overdue.

    But….I do not want to see one single cop removed from general duties and used as a revenue gatherer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. peterwn (3,163 comments) says:

    I suspect those who object to hefty road traffic enforcement are in a small minority. The matter did not seem to appear on the radar screen of concern in Helen’s government. If it did, Heather Simpson no doubt would have been screaming down the blower to the Police Commissioner.

    While Simon Power made a few noises about it in opposition, it seemed to have come to nothing. So there must have been minimal positive response, even among the faithful.

    Seems that when the cops set up a speed camera the locals bring out tea and scones for them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. simpleton (155 comments) says:

    It did make me wander at the dangerous habit of some car drivers that seem to be parking along side me travelling at about just over 100kms as they slowly inched past me, or even made me slow down so that can be past me before the end of the straight, or on coming traffic that has now appeared.
    This was explained to me as a consequence of demerit points and the passing driver did not want any more demerits.

    It seems that this is only going to encourage this practice, and to deadly results.

    I use to pass, accelerating to a good speed (often up to about 120 kph+) and was also aware in passing a long vechicle, that another overtaking vechicle following me would appreciate that I am not dawdling, and closing off his “passing window”.
    Of course every passing driver must make his own decison, for the situation, and fortuantely I have waited as a car has pulled out to overtake a vechicle, then seems to park alongside, inching along and giving a squirt of power just before the “passing window” has gone. Obvously holding up other traffic in the queue, that could have also have safely passed.

    On country roads I appreciate when other traffic wave you to overtake and if any one comes up behind me at speed I also wave them to pass and ease my speed. This courtesy seems to have died out amongst car drivers.

    I would like to know what is the difference in traffic numbers compared to ordinary weekends and so to figure out the true increase in accidents in per car, per kilometre traveled in those times.
    I am aware that a lot more drivers are on roads they are not used to, particulary differences in motorways, express ways, streets, city traffic to state hi-ways and country roads. Even different practices between regions with road markings, though I think they are becoing more standardised. On country roads you have to assess the road and corners at each part to what is an OK speed to travel at. I think it is now a lost art and is been overtaking by all the signage and taking commonsense away.

    Well all you drivers out there, take care.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. nickb (3,659 comments) says:

    Totally agree Manolo.

    In the the city I live in, over the last 3 years or so, I have seen (or got caught up in) 4-5 random acts of violence, like handbag snatches, brawls etc. Not ONCE during my 3 years in this city, have I seen a pair of cops just walking the beat during the day. Not one single time.

    Yet come nightfall and people are out drinking and having a good time, they come out en masse to make sure there is no chance of anyone having fun.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Manolo (1479) Says:
    June 3rd, 2010 at 10:50 am

    Because its easy work for the hierarchy and cheaper than real policing.
    No one can hold them accoutable in a real sense as the barriers to entry are huge so you can’t turf them out.
    If you read some of the police blogs in the UK and you’ll understand the mindset and realise that ordinary cops don’t like this approach at all, it’s not what they join for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Good point Sonny
    maybe all the fines should go into the roading fund bypassing the police completely?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. 2boyz (250 comments) says:

    Anyone ever come across a Police car doing 90 on the open road, I have and there is nothing more frustrating especially when conditions are good. Huge tailbacks but do they care (hell no they are probably getting off on it). The unfortunate thing is there will be deaths on our roads this weekend, they will dig out all the usual excuses. Short of banning cars they have no good ideas apart from lowering tolerances and ticketing the hell out of motorists.

    We know it’s not about the money but why not have eftpos units installed in patrol cars and offer a 10% discount for prompt payments when instant fines are issued.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Monty (468) Says:
    June 3rd, 2010 at 10:22 am

    You naughty boy for being in a stream of traffic.
    didn’t you know it is your duty to pull over if they are going too fast for you and start over each time or drive at your speed limit and they must overtake you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Rick Rowling (801 comments) says:

    Long weekend? The radar gun will be at the north end of the passing lane just north of Waikanae then.

    On the other hand, good on the Manawatu Police for targeting something different (centre-line crossing) on the Manawatu Gorge.

    I’m sure speed is often targeted because it’s easily measurable, unlike (say) tailgating.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    Nick I’d sugest that if your idea of “fun” invloves the cops then perhaps you’re not the finest citzen on the streets at that time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. kowtow (7,634 comments) says:

    This is policing by numbers. It penalises average drivers while ignoring the really dangerous ones who if they pose such a danger to themslves and the public should be locked up. The police should therefore address inaction at court.

    Today in theODT Howard Broad tells us the boys in blue will be out in force this weekend, why this weekend? Policing is 24/7. At least it used to be. Thats why I say policing by numbers. Holiday weekend tolls are a “bad look”. The minister and ACC probablly dont like it. Drive like shit during the week but watch out for the weekend.

    And the arses at the TV stations love it too. Some bimbo will be on a bridge somewhere breathlessly reporting the carnage and telling us how disappointed the cops are. Do senior cops get performance bonuses depending on how few people get killed?

    Drive safely ,there’s alot of mad bastrds out there and its not the ones doing 110 in a 100 zone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. campit (466 comments) says:

    Er, if the legal speed limit is 100, why shouldn’t you be fined for exceeding it? I wasn’t aware that there was a defacto speed limit of 110.

    I’m pretty sure in Brisbane there is zero tolerance, but the flip side is the limit is 110 on roads where this speed is deemed safe. The underlying issue appears to be that people think they should be allowed to drive faster, so isn’t the correct approach to lobby to raise the speed limit where this is appropriate? Its at that point you can raise evidence that it is safe to do so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. gravedodger (1,516 comments) says:

    Major revenue streams for road traffic policing involve; Speeding, WOF,COF , Overweight on HT and drink driving. These all are of no consequence at minor infringement levels but are very easy to enforce among the otherwise law abiding among us. Yes I accept the law has been broken but lets examine the recovery rates and repeat offending among those who will never pay and accumulate gross levels of unpaid penalties.
    Road safety is of very little consequence at 10 KPH, 1 week over fitness or rego renewal, and 20 mcg over arbitrary limits with no regard for circumstances. However 40KPH, no COF/WOF for months and gross intoxication will be most likely significant and current policing is singularly unsuccessful at detection and penalty for these offenders.
    Dangerous overtaking, crossing centerline, excessive speed, driving without licence and or vehicle fitness and drink driving /fatigued drivers will continue to avoid the predictable policing employed by plod unless one is singularly unlucky so is it any wonder the plods have a feeling of helplessness and frustration when so many of these offenders are only uncovered when dead or too injured to escape the scene.
    Outlaw radar detectors, get officers out on the dangerous roads in mufti cars and working in teams with secure communications and remove offending cars from the road at point of offense ( they are just as inconvenienced with breakdown) and I might just believe their bullshit about getting serious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. YesWeDid (1,029 comments) says:

    You really don’t get it DPF. The police are trying to send a clear message to slow down. Most people seem to treat the speed limit as a minimum not a maximum and having a 10 km/hr buffer just encourages people to go faster.

    As for the ‘evidence’ it is called the road toll. The faster you go the less time you have to react, it’s not rocket science.

    [DPF: You must be the genius that did the research for the Police. As I said one would set a 30 km/hr speed limit if all you want to do is have a lower road toll. What I am after is the research showing crashes from people driving on a straight road at just over the speed limit but below the current tolerance]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. nickb (3,659 comments) says:

    “Nick I’d sugest that if your idea of “fun” invloves the cops then perhaps you’re not the finest citzen on the streets at that time.”

    What I mean is poking their heads into clubs, coming and sitting down etc, doing Geoffrey Palmer’s bidding

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Fletch (6,026 comments) says:

    simpleton, I agree. If you’re to pull out to pass something, then pass it, I say! Nothing worse than someone pulling out in front of you to pass and then just sitting there in the passing lane barely going much faster.
    I reckon it’s all about collecting revenue for the Super City, or the World Cup rugby venues, or “party central” down on the waterfront. Just another way to separate hard working kiwis from their money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. pollywog (1,153 comments) says:

    I’ve had an idea about ‘speed points’ for a while.

    Whereby you pay a bit extra for your car registration or driving license which allows you to go a little bit faster without incurring a fine.

    Lets say the pre requisites are, you agree to do and pass a driving course that focusess on speed and handling, you agree to become an organ donor, you’re fully insured and that the ‘speed points’ only applies to the car you register for.

    I can see it appealing to the middle age sports car enthusiast with a bit of dosh who would like to wind the cobwebs out of the toy car without getting pinged by the 5 oh.

    Essentially, you’d pay for the tiered levels of driving skill and speed at which you feel comfortable to travel at and it offsets the revenue gathering tactics of ticketing every speeder.

    It’d be easy enough to police too, as you would see if the car has ‘speed points’ endorsement when you run it through the DMV on a normal check up.

    Seriously, would you all think about paying a bit more to even travel just 10k faster ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. wreck1080 (3,732 comments) says:

    I wouldn’t mind this so much, if the police also ticketed slow drivers .

    I hate slow drivers with long lines of traffic blocked up behind them.

    Then, you get to a passing lane, these pricks speed up and you go 113kph to pass them and mr plod is waiting at the end of the passing lane to ping you.

    I actually predict an increase in crashes due to this policing. Traffic queues will lengthen and cause impatience and an increase in risky overtaking maneuvers.

    Personally, if I get a few cars behind me I usually will let them pass even if I am going 110kph. It is not my job to be mr plod and enforce speed limits. It is safer for all to let these speeders past.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. RRM (9,467 comments) says:

    I’m normally very pro road rule enforcement but THIS IS A STUPID AND DANGEROUS IDEA.
    All it will accomplish is that a whole lot of people will be looking at their speedo instead of the road this weekend. Is this really going to improve safety?

    On a lot of cars the speedo needle itself is more than 4km/h wide, and/or the speedo goes up to some ridiculous speed like 300km/h, making 4km/h or even 10km/h a pretty small increment to try to aim for. How are these people supposed to maintain their speed within a 4km/h margin at all times?

    (My old man’s 1980s V8 Rover had the worst speedo ever, it went up to some crazy maximum speed but between zero and the maximum the needle only swung through a range of something like 90 or 100 degrees. Keeping your speed within 10km/h of what you knew you were supposed to be doing was enough of a challenge. 4km/h would have been impossible.)

    I won’t join DPF in assuming it’s intended as revenue gathering, I think that’s an unreasonable assumption and shows prejudice/blinkers. But this is not a good safety initiative.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. youami (45 comments) says:

    The road toll in the Northern Territory went up when the open road speed limit was changed from unlimited to 130 Km/h. Could it be that fatal accidents might be caused by other factors than just speed? No, I guess not. I guess that if I don’t speed and I don’t drink-drive, then I’m a safe driver… yeah, right!

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the road toll went up following a “zero tolerance” policy, as it means that drivers will now need to spend far more time looking at their speedo rather than looking at the road.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Magnanomis (138 comments) says:

    What’s with the Police’s prissy comment that speedometer calibration is not a reasonable defence? Why not? Do they calibrate the speedo’s in their fleet? – could be a germane issue in fatal Police pursuits (?). I have a classic Jag whose speedo under-reports and a newish Audi that over-reports (NOTHING can be done): I know because I got a ticket. Ohhh yes – the radar that pinged me didn’t have a current calibration certificate and Police radars have documented errors of margins, just like speedos.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. GPT1 (2,090 comments) says:

    Saw this on the news last night with disbelief. Justification was “speed kills”. Awesome analysis. Up there with cars kill. Not a single piece of analysis of how many crashes were “caused” by excessive speed or where excessive speed was a factor. One News did at least quote the AA who pointed out that it will ping over taking motorists and mentioned a side issue of faulty speedos but there was no questioning of the police as to what stats they used to employ this dranconian tactic. Frankly I would rather see one dangerous driving charge for idiots overtaking on double yellows and other such silliness than a dozen tickets for speed.

    Police speedos are calibrated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. lastmanstanding (1,204 comments) says:

    Sigh!!! This yet again illustrates the common sense bypass that both the Plods and the pollies have had.

    Rule #1. If you dont want to piss off the people you should be replying on for support dont come up with dumbarse ideas like this. Vehicles especially those not new can have inaccruate speedometers up to 10%.

    Rule#2. Banging on about speed per say has proved to be a big yawn for the vast majority. They have switched off. So you need to get on message.

    Rule#3. Pulling up slow drivers holding up traffic flow will kerb the frustrations that cause poor overtaking decisions.

    Rule#4. Do me smart arses as one poster referred to and drive under the speed limit pissing off all those following you.

    Rule#5. Forget posted speed signs. As Bob Jones has always said there shouldnt be any. Just a simple rule that you must drive at a speed appropraite to the conditions and if there is a dispute the Courts hear the evidence and make a decision.

    So Plod and pollies. Face it Your dumbarse 4kms rule wont make a blind bit of difference to the road toll this weekend sad though any death/ injury is. All you have done is piss off a large number of good law abiding citizens.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. cabbage (454 comments) says:

    Ohhh yes – the radar that pinged me didn’t have a current calibration certificate

    That is entirely legitimate grounds for defence right there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. tvb (4,208 comments) says:

    This is utter hypocracy by the Police. If they thought their policies WORKED why are they budgeting for for revenue. I bet when they make bids for money they factor in what they can rake in through speeding fines. And they police this law to get MONEY rather than road safety Also how can they expect motorists have respect for this law when the police routinely break the law themselves. There is NO need at all for the police to be screaming though built up areas chasing some emergency. The known risk this poses to the public is balanced against the hypothetical risk of getting to a place a few seconds earlier than usual. Also why do they issue tickets when there are no road safety issues at all except a brief excess speed while passing. The Police are just tax gatherers in this area and I have UTTER contempt for the way this law is policed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Repton (769 comments) says:

    On a lot of cars the speedo needle itself is more than 4km/h wide, and/or the speedo goes up to some ridiculous speed like 300km/h, making 4km/h or even 10km/h a pretty small increment to try to aim for. How are these people supposed to maintain their speed within a 4km/h margin at all times?

    Aim for 95? You don’t have to do a minimum of 100, you know. It’s OK to go a bit slower.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. simpleton (155 comments) says:

    Thanks Fletch,

    If you’re to pull out to pass something, then pass it, I say!

    wreck1080

    Personally, if I get a few cars behind me I usually will let them pass even if I am going 110kph. It is not my job to be mr plod and enforce speed limits. It is safer for all to let these speeders past.

    It is a pyschological thing of travelling slower when the road is more narrow and speeding up when it is wider. However one has a duty as a driver to be aware of all things and the speedo is one thing to more than just observe, as are the mirrors to realize there is a queue, and to use as a tool with all consideration of other users, particularly the old fashion courtesy of allowing others to pass, particulary where there are passing lanes !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Repton (769 comments) says:

    Saw this on the news last night with disbelief. Justification was “speed kills”. Awesome analysis. Up there with cars kill. Not a single piece of analysis of how many crashes were “caused” by excessive speed or where excessive speed was a factor.

    To be fair, even if analysis were done, it wouldn’t get a mention in a 3 minute segment in the evening news. Or even in a newspaper article. If you’re really interested in knowing, you could send in an OIA asking for the research or analysis that lead to this trial. And maybe another OIA after the long weekend, asking how much money they gathered from speeding fines, and how that compares with past Queen’s Birthday weekends.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Spoon (101 comments) says:

    I was coming back to Dunedin from Christchurch one Friday afternoon. About half an hour north of Dunedin I caught up with a marked police car. Over the next couple of passing lanes the traffic sorted itself out so the ones who weren’t confident doing 90kph near a police card dropped back, then ones who were came forward.

    In the end myself and 2-3 other cars sat behind the police car doing about the same speed as him all the way over the Kilmog – going up to about 130kph (indicating 140 odd as my speedo is out). I doubt many individual cops care about driving at 110k, but quotas to meet and all that!

    Also another hand up for the biggest problem being dickheads who drive too slow. Coming from Nelson towards Punakiki at the start of the year I got stuck behind a people mover doing 60-80. Any potential passing opportunities (few and far between) she sped up. We both stopped at Punakiki and I suggested to her that in future she let cars pass – her husband got very defensive (almost aggressively so) and said I was driving unsafely. I would have been more than safe doing 80-100+ on those roads – probably safer than doing 60-80 and constantly looking for opporunities to pass.

    @dpf: I’m sure you posted stats at some point regarding the number of accidents caused by “minor” speeding? I’ve searched but can’t find. I’d love to see the actual numbers (possibly retrievable under the OIA?) of these accidents, taking into account which ones have contributing factors (ie if you crash driving pissed in a blizzard at 110kph the crash isn’t caused by speeding, it’s caused by drunk driving, and not driving to the conditions).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. peterwn (3,163 comments) says:

    Mikenz – The fines do not go to the Police even though they collect the fines in the first instance. They go directly into general Government funds along with court fines etc. Treasury tries to get a handle on the amount expected for Budget purposes, but there is no direct expectation that the police or judiciary have particular quotas to meet.

    The situation is that road traffic enforcement is paid for by TANZ as part of its normal road operating budget. TANZ then pay this on to the police who do the actual enforcement, and the TANZ is concerned that this money is used for traffic enforcement and not for catching crooks. The KPI for the police is the road toll, not the dollars raised from tickets.

    In some ways it would be better if TANZ ran their own enforcement service. This means that the enforcement carried out by the ‘snakes’ do not reflect badly on the police (in non traffic roles). However there was duplication and grey areas with two policing agencies (eg each had separate communications centres, radio systems, etc). Perhaps more separation in the Police would be desirable with cars and uniforms being made more distinct (eg traffic police not using the blue/white Sillitoe tartan on uniforms etc).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. RRM (9,467 comments) says:

    [Spoon]:
    In the end myself and 2-3 other cars sat behind the police car doing about the same speed as him all the way over the Kilmog – going up to about 130kph (indicating 140 odd as my speedo is out). I doubt many individual cops care about driving at 110k, but quotas to meet and all that!

    [/quote]

    Hope you don’t mind if I repeat that story for added emphasis. I’m pretty pro- traffic enforcement, but that from the cops makes a mockery of the whole thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Spoon (101 comments) says:

    http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Speed-Crash-Factsheet.pdf provides some vaguely relevant stats.

    Speeding was the only contributing factor in just 16% of accidents. This includes “too fast for the conditions” and “ridiculously fast”, so it’s safe to assume the number between 100kph and 110kph is significantly lower.

    If you also discount stupid drivers who would’ve crashed at 90 (those who don’t slow down for corners, ones who veer out of their lane changing CDs, ones generally not paying attention), and ones doing 105kph on a road that isn’t safe for it (narrow windy roads that aren’t quite 2 cars wide) it’d leave bugger all good drivers crashing on good roads marginally over the limit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. MajorBloodnok (361 comments) says:

    A problem not yet mentioned: is the speed limit appropriate to the road in question, and acceptable to the users of that road?

    In particular, for urban roads, 50km/h is too slow for many arterials, and too fast for narrow cul-de-sacs with parked cars on both sides of the road.

    Too often, speed limits are spread over too large an area — ignoring differences between roads. Or they are set by political pressure, rather than road geometry and neighbourhood hazards.

    If speed limits were set appropriately, in collaboration with the surrounding community (and not just the immediate residents), then a tolerance of 5km/h is perhaps justifiable. But unless some urban speed limits are raised, I would find it very difficult to accept this unilaterally-applied policy.

    Rural speed limits should not be set according to the lowest common denominator. If my car can safely travel the XYZ gorge at 100km/h, don’t lower the speed limit to 80km/h just because someone else might roll or slide at open road speed.

    Speed limits must be acceptable, to be enforceable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Viking2 (11,138 comments) says:

    # Viking2 (1796) Says:
    June 3rd, 2010 at 6:47 am

    And then there are fucking idiots like this.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3770036/Mayor-nicked-at-142kmh-loses-licence

    3 months loss of license for 100 demerits . The last ticket for 142 KPH. The justice must be his mate.
    2 years loss of license and community service with the thugs would more appropriate.
    and never mind about the bleeding heart bullshit about who he is ( no idea) and how he does this and that. He is a numb skull fuckwhit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. aardvark (417 comments) says:

    I blogged about this today (a full hour before DPF ! :-) ) and I’ve suggested that the law should allow for *overtaking* vehicles to travel at speeds of up to 120Km/H so as to allow for safer overtaking.

    This would apply on the open road and on passing lanes.

    The open-road limit would remain at 100kph and if you were exceeding that while not passing you’d still get pinged but the whole stupid situation where you get pinged for doing 105 in a passing lane or while attempting to spend the minimum amount of time on “the wrong side of the road” while passing would be eliminated.

    And let’s face it — if the government/police were *REALLY concerned about road safety rather than revenue, they’d be making us re-sit our theory test every time we renewed our license.

    In my forums I’ve commented on the fact that 9 out of 10 people do not know how the riight-hand rule applies to an uncontrolled T-intersection. Every day I have to assume that other drivers will consider that *they* have the right of way and drive into my path, even though the road code specifically states otherwise.

    The problem is that when the government/police lie so blatantly about their motives they lose the respect of the public and therefore they lose a significant amount of their ability to influence people’s behaviour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. labrator (1,750 comments) says:

    @Magnanomis

    What’s with the Police’s prissy comment that speedometer calibration is not a reasonable defence? Why not? Do they calibrate the speedo’s in their fleet?

    Yep, police cars have calibrated speedos and they can be used as evidence in court. eg If they follow behind you at 120 km/hr on the motorway, then their speedo reading is admissable as evidence of your speed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. starboard (2,475 comments) says:

    There can be no excuses. We are killing our people and we want it to stop

    ..Emotive mumbo jumbo…she can blow me…and so can Howard…my respect for the police is in the gutter. Go and catch some real crims you lazy revenue gathering fucks…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Yvette (2,692 comments) says:

    Will not the ETS levy on petrol have been determined on the amount of fuel motorists use, so will not that need a revision if we are to travel slower and use less of it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. marynicolehicks (24 comments) says:

    If you disagree with the speed limit being 100km/h, get the government to raise it. Stop complaining that they are finally going to enforce a 100 km/h limit. If you have a problem with them doing this, then YOU are the problem.

    Passing lanes should not be a problem at 100 km/h. If vehicles are slow enough that you need to pass then you should be able to pass them at 100 km/h. If you can’t because they are going FASTER in passing lanes, then perhaps…

    WE NEED A LAW saying you are not allowed to speed up AT ALL in a passing lane, unless you are passing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. gravedodger (1,516 comments) says:

    mnh @ 01 32, they don’t speed up, there is some law of physics that causes vehicles to be drawn faster along roads in direct proportion to width and degree of visability. The phenomona is beyond my understanding of physics at UE level c. 1959.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. RightNow (6,668 comments) says:

    I think if the police were really serious about saving lives vs revenue gathering then they’d put some well advertised fixed speed cameras in serious black spots. People keep dying in the same spots year after year and the police response is to set up speed traps somewhere else. It’s almost like saving lives is secondary to gathering revenue. Actually, it’s exactly like that.

    While technically I have nothing against enforcing the speed limit, I can see that as a result of this many people will now travel around 90kmh on the highway, speeding up to 100 when they get to the passing lane, and traffic will back up behind them getting more and more frustrated until someone overtakes recklessly.
    I hope the empirical evidence proves otherwise, but I give this new policy at least a 50% chance of increasing deaths on the road.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. marynicolehicks (24 comments) says:

    Speed does not kill. Hitting something with a car kills.

    Speed should not matter as long as
    – the police installed futuristic cameras to catch people passing or leaving their lane when they should not be (Eg on corners)
    – Cars were futuristic and automatically breaked to leave a suitable stopping distance when they detected a object ahead that could cause an impact.

    Perhaps we should just listen to the insurance agencies and realise that women are better drivers. Therefore banning men from driving would make everything safer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    Speed does not kill

    Quite so, but we’ve been subjected to the “Speed Kills(tm)” mealy-mouthed platitude for so long that it’s now taken as truth.

    Speed doesn’t kill, but massive deceleration does. Massive deceleration is caused when your car is struck or strikes another object. The risk of an incident that gives rise to injury-causing massive deceleration is impacted by conditions of road, condition and capability of the vehicle, capability (latent less impairment) of the driver, capability of other drivers…. and speed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Nefarious (533 comments) says:

    I propose reverting to limiting speeds to 6.4 kms per hour in the country and 3.2 in towns with the requirement to have an attendant walk 50 metres ahead of the vehicle, bearing a red flag, signaling the driver when to stop.

    That should cut the road toll. Speed hungry maniacs have no place on Nefarious’s highways.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. James (1,338 comments) says:

    Undercover traffic cops are “speedophiles” as far as Im concerned.

    And who agrees that there needs to be a floating speed limit after say 9pm? 50km is far too slow on roads that are mostly empty during the night.Have 50 zones rise to 70 after this time…where appropriate of course.I submit trying to maintain 50 on an empty open road at night actually cause accidents as drivers are so bored they switch off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. BlueDevil (92 comments) says:

    Better roads and better cars are what have reduced the road toll.
    I doubt ticketing speeders has had any effect.

    This report on ‘black spot’ improvement showed a 49% reduction in fatal accidents.

    http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/crash-reduction-study-safety-improvements/docs/2004.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. CharlieBrown (909 comments) says:

    Can someone start a facebook group to organise a silent protest or something. Eg, encourage people to dob a traffic cop in by flashing your lights at all oncoming drivers when you see a traffic pig, or encourage people to get police to show their badge, give their badge number and name, and generally waste the traffic pigs time when they pull you over? When will the theiving pigs realise that it is bad and reckless driving that kills, not driving 11kms over the speed limit on a straight unpopulated road, or overtaking a slow driver.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Yvette (2,692 comments) says:

    “Using data from actual road crashes, scientists at the University of Adelaide estimated the relative risk of a car becoming involved in a casualty crash – a car crash in which people are killed or hospitalised – for cars travelling at or above 60 kilometres/hour. They found that the risk doubled for every 5 kilometres/hour above 60 kilometres/hour. Thus, a car travelling at 65 kilometres/hour was twice as likely to be involved in a casualty crash as one travelling at 60. For a car travelling at 70 kilometres/hour, the risk increased fourfold. For speeds below 60 kilometres/hour the likelihood of a fatal crash can be expected to be correspondingly reduced.” http://www.science.org.au/nova/058/058key.htm

    Some years ago, a television road safety campaign demonstrated braking and impact facts, with the ‘special effect’ of a presenter walking between slow motion braking cars doing 50 kph and 60 kph, and in my opinion this is the only meaningful ad I have seen on “Speed Kills’. The baking distance is considerably increased, as is the impact, since the critical force remains to a surprising degree until the final movements of the vehicle. The current ad of “he would have stopped here if he was doing fifty, but he wasn’t” is a wishy washy version of the same thing, without the authority of the facts the other campaign had. In fact the current ad really pisses me off since it is of boringly long duration, and the earlier ‘factual’ ad was more convincing and considerably shorter.

    “In the University of Adelaide study referred to earlier, this was certainly true in zones where the speed limit was 60 kilometres/hour: the risk doubled with every 5 kilometres/hour above the speed limit.”

    This is at 60 kph – how much more so is it at 100 – 105 kph?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Yvette (2,692 comments) says:

    “Using data from actual road crashes, scientists at the University of Adelaide estimated the relative risk of a car becoming involved in a casualty crash – a car crash in which people are killed or hospitalised – for cars travelling at or above 60 kilometres/hour. They found that the risk doubled for every 5 kilometres/hour above 60 kilometres/hour. Thus, a car travelling at 65 kilometres/hour was twice as likely to be involved in a casualty crash as one travelling at 60. For a car travelling at 70 kilometres/hour, the risk increased fourfold. For speeds below 60 kilometres/hour the likelihood of a fatal crash can be expected to be correspondingly reduced.”
    http://www.science.org.au/nova/058/058key.htm

    Some years ago, a television road safety campaign demonstrated braking and impact facts, with the ‘special effect’ of a presenter walking between slow motion braking cars doing 50 kph and 60 kph, and in my opinion this is the only meaningful ad I have seen on “Speed Kills’. The baking distance is considerably increased, as is the impact, since the critical force remains to a surprising degree until the final movements of the vehicle. The current ad of “he would have stopped here if he was doing fifty, but he wasn’t” is a wishy washy version of the same thing, without the authority of the facts the other campaign had. In fact the current ad really pisses me off since it is of boringly long duration, and the earlier ‘factual’ ad was more convincing and considerably shorter.

    “In the University of Adelaide study referred to earlier, this was certainly true in zones where the speed limit was 60 kilometres/hour: the risk doubled with every 5 kilometres/hour above the speed limit.”

    This is at 60 kph – how much more so is it at 100 – 105 kph?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Repton (769 comments) says:

    Can someone start a facebook group to organise a silent protest or something.

    I won’t stop you!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Yvette (2,692 comments) says:

    “Using data from actual road crashes, scientists at the University of Adelaide estimated the relative risk of a car becoming involved in a casualty crash – a car crash in which people are killed or hospitalised – for cars travelling at or above 60 kilometres/hour. They found that the risk doubled for every 5 kilometres/hour above 60 kilometres/hour. Thus, a car travelling at 65 kilometres/hour was twice as likely to be involved in a casualty crash as one travelling at 60. For a car travelling at 70 kilometres/hour, the risk increased fourfold. For speeds below 60 kilometres/hour the likelihood of a fatal crash can be expected to be correspondingly reduced.”
    http://www.science.org.au/nova/058/058key.htm

    Some years ago, a television road safety campaign demonstrated braking and impact facts, with the ‘special effect’ of a presenter walking between slow motion braking cars doing 50 kph and 60 kph, and in my opinion this is the only meaningful ad I have seen on “Speed Kills’. The baking distance is considerably increased, as is the impact, since the critical force remains to a surprising degree until the final movements of the vehicle. The current ad of “he would have stopped here if he was doing fifty, but he wasn’t” is a wishy washy version of the same thing, without the authority of the facts the other campaign had. In fact the current ad really pisses me off since it is of boringly long duration, and the earlier ‘factual’ ad was more convincing and considerably shorter.

    “In the University of Adelaide study referred to earlier, this was certainly true in zones where the speed limit was 60 kilometres/hour: the risk doubled with every 5 kilometres/hour above the speed limit.”

    This is at 60 kph – how much more so is it at 100 – 105 kph?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. RRM (9,467 comments) says:

    I don’t know what beneficial effect speed policing has on road safety, but I am reasonably certain of the following:

    (1) You have to have some sort of legal limit, or else a lot of people will do 220km/h and you can’t tell me that would be safer than what we have now.

    (2) If you have a limit, you have to enforce it strongly or else people will just take the piss.

    (3) The limit is already 100, not 110 or even 105. So the only people this change affects are those [like myself] who are already flouting the law by driving to a de facto limit of 110 because they know they can get away with it. So there is no excuse for moral outrage over this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Viking2 (11,138 comments) says:

    Interesting drive back from Te Puke to the Mt this afternoon.

    Now this is a believe it or not story but it is absolutely true.
    And this on a very busy main highway at about 4.30 pm.

    I do a lot of miles and have seen a lot of idiots including those that still are using their cellphones. but this blew me away.

    Left the 50kph area following a little bright blue ute. Single cab with a cover over the back. Speed up to 100 or so and then the ute starts weaving across the lane.
    One occupant I thought, but next thing I see a head with blond hair seemingly pop up from the drivers lap. I’m seeing things right. No not a tall.
    So for the next 6-7 km we have this blonde all over the driver head up head down and the ute all over the lane.
    No doubt about what’s happening here. Like watching a teaser for a porno.
    Driver almost missed his turnoff to Papmoa. Concentration was not on driving.
    Caught a glimpse of the blonde. Not bad looker either.
    So if you are a fellow with black afro hair style and a bright blue ute that hangs out down Papamoa way We are envious but for saftey’s sake wear a condom and other than that at least pull over before you spit the mist.

    P.S I know you. Ha.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Alan Wilkinson (1,816 comments) says:

    If what you are doing doesn’t work, do more of it – police “intelligence”.

    As I said elsewhere, it should be possible to sue officialdom for persistent, abject idiocy. Of course this would completely clog the courts with cases.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Alan Wilkinson (1,816 comments) says:

    marynicholehicks, what a load of brain-dead b.s. from start to finish. First, women are not better drivers. They have more significantly more crashes per kilometre driven than men even allowing for the moronic driving of a minority of young men.

    The only cheering thing is that two of the propaganda meat-heads who used to lecture us interminably about driving safely and slowly then died on the roads: Peter Brock and Steve Fitzgerald.

    Obviously there is a God. You’d better watch out for Him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Steve (4,499 comments) says:

    Long weekend. I am staying home, too many fuckwits on the roads.
    Remember when traveling out of Auckland no tooting horns, no road rage, no pushing into the que.
    Just repeat the mantra under your breath “GET OUT OF MY FUCKING ROAD YOU STUPID PRICK” better than listening to music or screaming kids huh?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. kaya (1,360 comments) says:

    I imagine every Government department is under instruction to improver their budget, whatever way they can. This is an easy one for the administrators in the back rooms of the police. They either fail to see or fail to care about the impact this has on the respect (and lack of) that the general public have for the force. Tragic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Yvette (2,692 comments) says:

    I will not be surprized if this long weekend sees a greater number of rear-ended crashes through tail-gating.
    However –

    “Using data from actual road crashes, scientists at the University of Adelaide estimated the relative risk of a car becoming involved in a casualty crash – a car crash in which people are killed or hospitalised – for cars travelling at or above 60 kilometres/hour. They found that the risk doubled for every 5 kilometres/hour above 60 kilometres/hour. Thus, a car travelling at 65 kilometres/hour was twice as likely to be involved in a casualty crash as one travelling at 60. For a car travelling at 70 kilometres/hour, the risk increased fourfold. For speeds below 60 kilometres/hour the likelihood of a fatal crash can be expected to be correspondingly reduced.”
    http://www.science.org.au/nova/058/058key.htm

    Some years ago, a television road safety campaign demonstrated braking and impact facts, with the ‘special effect’ of a presenter walking between slow motion braking cars doing 50 kph and 60 kph, and in my opinion this is the only meaningful ad I have seen on “Speed Kills’. The baking distance is considerably increased, as is the impact, since the critical force remains to a surprising degree until the final movements of the vehicle. The current ad of “he would have stopped here if he was doing fifty, but he wasn’t” is a wishy washy version of the same thing, without the authority of the facts the other campaign had. In fact the current ad really pisses me off since it is of boringly long duration, and the earlier ‘factual’ ad was more convincing and considerably shorter.

    “In the University of Adelaide study referred to earlier, this was certainly true in zones where the speed limit was 60 kilometres/hour: the risk doubled with every 5 kilometres/hour above the speed limit.”

    This is at 60 kph – how much more so is it at 100 – 105 kph?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Yvette (2,692 comments) says:

    I will not be surprized if this long weekend sees a greater number of rear-ended crashes due to tail-gating.
    However –

    “Using data from actual road crashes, scientists at the University of Adelaide estimated the relative risk of a car becoming involved in a casualty crash – a car crash in which people are killed or hospitalised – for cars travelling at or above 60 kilometres/hour. They found that the risk doubled for every 5 kilometres/hour above 60 kilometres/hour. Thus, a car travelling at 65 kilometres/hour was twice as likely to be involved in a casualty crash as one travelling at 60. For a car travelling at 70 kilometres/hour, the risk increased fourfold. For speeds below 60 kilometres/hour the likelihood of a fatal crash can be expected to be correspondingly reduced.”
    http://www.science.org.au/nova/058/058key.htm

    Some years ago, a television road safety campaign demonstrated braking and impact facts, with the ‘special effect’ of a presenter walking between slow motion braking cars doing 50 kph and 60 kph, and in my opinion this is the only meaningful ad I have seen on “Speed Kills’. The baking distance is considerably increased, as is the impact, since the critical force remains to a surprising degree until the final movements of the vehicle. The current ad of “he would have stopped here if he was doing fifty, but he wasn’t” is a wishy washy version of the same thing, without the authority of the facts the other campaign had. In fact the current ad really pisses me off since it is of boringly long duration, and the earlier ‘factual’ ad was more convincing and considerably shorter.

    “In the University of Adelaide study referred to earlier, this was certainly true in zones where the speed limit was 60 kilometres/hour: the risk doubled with every 5 kilometres/hour above the speed limit.”

    This is at 60 kph – how much more so is it at 100 – 105 kph?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Yvette (2,692 comments) says:

    “Using data from actual road crashes, scientists at the University of Adelaide estimated the relative risk of a car becoming involved in a casualty crash – a car crash in which people are killed or hospitalised – for cars travelling at or above 60 kilometres/hour. They found that the risk doubled for every 5 kilometres/hour above 60 kilometres/hour. Thus, a car travelling at 65 kilometres/hour was twice as likely to be involved in a casualty crash as one travelling at 60. For a car travelling at 70 kilometres/hour, the risk increased fourfold. For speeds below 60 kilometres/hour the likelihood of a fatal crash can be expected to be correspondingly reduced.”
    http://www.science.org.au/nova/058/058key.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Yvette (2,692 comments) says:

    I will not be surprised if this long weekend see more crashes from tail-gating

    However –
    “Using data from actual road crashes, scientists at the University of Adelaide estimated the relative risk of a car becoming involved in a casualty crash – a car crash in which people are killed or hospitalised – for cars travelling at or above 60 kilometres/hour. They found that the risk doubled for every 5 kilometres/hour above 60 kilometres/hour. Thus, a car travelling at 65 kilometres/hour was twice as likely to be involved in a casualty crash as one travelling at 60. For a car travelling at 70 kilometres/hour, the risk increased fourfold. For speeds below 60 kilometres/hour the likelihood of a fatal crash can be expected to be correspondingly reduced.”
    http://www.science.org.au/nova/058/058key.htm

    Some years ago, a television road safety campaign demonstrated braking and impact facts, with the ‘special effect’ of a presenter walking between slow motion braking cars doing 50 kph and 60 kph, and in my opinion this is the only meaningful ad I have seen on “Speed Kills’. The baking distance is considerably increased, as is the impact, since the critical force remains to a surprising degree until the final movements of the vehicle. The current ad of “he would have stopped here if he was doing fifty, but he wasn’t” is a wishy washy version of the same thing, without the authority of the facts the other campaign had. In fact the current ad really pisses me off since it is of boringly long duration, and the earlier ‘factual’ ad was more convincing and considerably shorter.

    “In the University of Adelaide study referred to earlier, this was certainly true in zones where the speed limit was 60 kilometres/hour: the risk doubled with every 5 kilometres/hour above the speed limit.”

    This is at 60 kph – how much more so is it at 100 – 105 kph?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Yvette (2,692 comments) says:

    “Using data from actual road crashes, scientists at the University of Adelaide estimated the relative risk of a car becoming involved in a casualty crash – a car crash in which people are killed or hospitalised – for cars travelling at or above 60 kilometres/hour. They found that the risk doubled for every 5 kilometres/hour above 60 kilometres/hour. Thus, a car travelling at 65 kilometres/hour was twice as likely to be involved in a casualty crash as one travelling at 60. For a car travelling at 70 kilometres/hour, the risk increased fourfold. For speeds below 60 kilometres/hour the likelihood of a fatal crash can be expected to be correspondingly reduced.” http://www.science.org.au/nova/058/058key.htm

    This is at 60 kph – how much more so is it at 100 – 105 kph?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    I remember some kids in Aussie stole the number plates off a speed camera van while the operator was sleeping. Replaced their plates with the speed cameras plates and then drove past speed vans at 130 plus giving the fingers. Seems the cops were busy rubbing their hands and adding up all the the fines. Imagine their horror when they discovered the plates were traced back to a speed van. The head of police was later to state that no action would be taken as they admired the “balls” shown by these larrikins

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Repton (769 comments) says:

    And who agrees that there needs to be a floating speed limit after say 9pm? 50km is far too slow on roads that are mostly empty during the night.

    Awesome idea — let’s encourage people to drive faster as visibility decreases!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. longbow (130 comments) says:

    driving according to road condition is more appropriate imo.

    traffic signs in NZ are often misleading. at one gentle bend marked with 45 KM i had no problem passing at 70 KM. another one somewhere near taupo/rotorua marked with 80 and i had to break several times passing at 65 because the narrow road, angle of bend, viewing distance and up coming vehicles.

    in metro area with pedestrains n cyclists, 50 to 55 is probably ok. but i’d rather watch the front and surroundings (e.g. cyclists!) rather than check my speedo every now and then. and what’s wrong with the new road markings in Auckland SH1 between Market road and city? they are so $#@! narrow, with a truck on the left, a 4wd on the right, most running on lanes from time to time, i’d rather not to pass between them.

    on many highway or openroads when road condition and weather condition is good, i see no reason why not driving at over 104 if your car is capable of crusing at that speed.

    in the end i find it less convicing that focing speed limit of 104 on open roads could save lives. those who actually speeding never drives at 105 or even 110 KM. this is totally revenue gathering aimed at average joes.

    last but not least, just look out where the cops are hiding – they are hiding behind trees after bends, behind hills, highway exits whether speed limit changes from 100 to 50, where you could easily let open throttle just a little bit, where you can’t seem them until you are in their radar/laser gun range.

    revenue, gathering.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Alan Wilkinson (1,816 comments) says:

    Yvette, that study is B.S. since motorways are much safer (fewer crashes) than slower roads. I notice your link avoids giving a reference to the actual study. That is the modus operandi for the speed kills alarmists.

    The fact is that risk varies hugely with conditions. Select the conditions and you can produce any statistical result you want – but it won’t apply in the real world. Which is why Steve Fitzgerald is dead and I am not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Yvette (2,692 comments) says:

    I apologise for the number of times my comment appears – some bizarre quirk in the posting system yesterday evening.
    But I do not apologise for the comment itself. As always – take it or leave it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    I believe most road accidents are caused by bad overtaking procedures.

    If the police are serious about getting speed down, why don’t they promote 100 k Governors.

    Because then they couldn’t revenue.

    But anyway, how do you find out your demerits?

    When the cop tells you as he takes your licence off you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Socrates (86 comments) says:

    So as a “Naked Revenue Gathering” exercise it was a dismal failure… Word is it was a record low long weekend for speeding tickets…

    But as a road safety measure it looks very successful:

    The lowest road toll for Queens birthday weekend in 50 years…

    And a 20% reduction in accidents full stop…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.