NZ Proposing to ban radar detectors too!

[jpp 0]

Granted with them getting proper mufti cars (like the Honda and there are a couple of different models up here), they are a little harder to recognise.

Saw a Toyota Camry the other day with a ladder on the roof and had pulled someone over...

Also seen the Hyundai a few times when up north.

[Jeddy 0]

Someone may have mentioned this but bit ironic as the BMW's the govt just purchased all have inbuilt ones.

[Cale 36]

Saw a Toyota Camry the other day with a ladder on the roof and had pulled someone over...

Also seen the Hyundai a few times when up north.

Yeah, my dad got pulled up by the Hyundai going into Orewa 2 weeks ago.

Theres also Honda's lurking around aswell.

[Jeddy 0]

Bit of a development on this front.

Linky

I chalk that up in the 'hopeful' category

[hybrid 1043]

The Safety Warning System, a small portable transmitter, works by sending specific alerts, such as "Emergency Vehicle Ahead" or "Highway Work Crews Ahead", to any radar detector that comes within one kilometre.

hehe .. I can just imagine being told every 2 kms of road works ..

[bravo 35]

Hah I agree. In Northland they would be better off with a "The road is clear of Roadworks for the next 6km..." warning as it is such a shock when it happens.

[BMW POWER 2]

Haha. Ban radar detectors and cellphones.... clean sweep for Labour, Ten points!

If they ban this they should also ban

Lipstick

Prostitutes

Can Openers

Hairties

Tui

Blazers

A4 Excercise books

Pornos

Sunglasses

Nike shoes.

...and anything else that is relevant.

[ED1RTY 2]

I have a Beltronics STI. Has saved me many a time when I have been pulled over with the cop saying you were speeding etc etc. I say sorry officer how fast was i going? He says 140. I say can I see that on your scanner?

Moral of story. Cop didn't have scanner on and I new this because my radar did not go off.

P.S I only speed when I feel it is safe to do so. On motorway etc with only myself in the car at times where there are minimal other people on the road. I know my limits and do not push them on roads I do not know

P.P.S I believe the reason for banning is so they can gather more revenue by making people believe they were caught speeding.

[Avenged.SSE 0]

Saying that driving over the limit = puts you on alert = safeness is not really a valid argument at all, it can cause more harm in the long run, and on the same topic, you could say driving tipsy makes you a better driver due to the 'alertness' and I'm pretty sure increasing the alcohol limit a few fold is not going to make anyone safer. I've never really had probs with speeding, although most times on the way home I find a lot of people don't realize when limit changes from 80km/h -> 100km/h and vice versa which can get irritating.

We need to keep in mind that driving is all about moderation. Any moron can get in a car and mash down on the accelerator, it's no real skill - a point many people don't realize.

[Edit]And I'm sure cops aren't out to maximize their revenue. If they really wanted to do that, they'd station one outside most high schools, as 3/4 of the kids would be driving people around on restricted, or they could camp out at the bottom of hills, something I've only seen done once.

Edited June 16, 2008 by Avenged.SSE

[Silver Fox 43]

Haha. Ban radar detectors and cellphones.... clean sweep for Labour, Ten points!

If they ban this they should also ban

Lipstick

Prostitutes

Can Openers

Hairties

Tui

Blazers

A4 Excercise books

Pornos

Sunglasses

Nike shoes.

...and anything else that is relevant.

You forgot the worst of them Em,

McDonald's,

BK's,

Wendy's,

and most of all,

Pretty girls on the sidewalk

[Jeddy 0]

P.P.S I believe the reason for banning is so they can gather more revenue by making people believe they were caught speeding.

Yes i'm really sure thats their intention.

Do people actually believe this? If that was the case i imagine the consequences of using one would be a big fine, no demerits so the offenders repeat it again and again for revenue maximisation, wouldn't they?

Also interesting study showed the conversation was more of a distraction than the actual task of holding the phone, which if they follow the research is going to be ubber hard to enforce...handfree, speaker phone etc

Edited June 16, 2008 by jeddy

[Foohey 0]

lol, my mate is a "nerd" and has pulled his appart, has the speaker and lights etc on dash and radar in front bumper, only down side is that it was a 360 radar, but now it only detects from the front, but the cant take it, its part of the bumper and will never find it lol

[jimbo01 0]

Saying that driving over the limit = puts you on alert = safeness is not really a valid argument at all, it can cause more harm in the long run, and on the same topic, you could say driving tipsy makes you a better driver due to the 'alertness' and I'm pretty sure increasing the alcohol limit a few fold is not going to make anyone safer. I've never really had probs with speeding, although most times on the way home I find a lot of people don't realize when limit changes from 80km/h -> 100km/h and vice versa which can get irritating.

We need to keep in mind that driving is all about moderation. Any moron can get in a car and mash down on the accelerator, it's no real skill - a point many people don't realize.

[Edit]And I'm sure cops aren't out to maximize their revenue. If they really wanted to do that, they'd station one outside most high schools, as 3/4 of the kids would be driving people around on restricted, or they could camp out at the bottom of hills, something I've only seen done once.

I can't agree - 50kph can be interesting and involving, if it's on a nice twisty bit of road, but driving along trying to sit on no more than 100kph on many of our roads is tedious. The is no arguing that driving over 100kph or other speed limits is illegal, but is it more dangerous than becoming lulled into an inattentive state by the sheer boredom. So this is just me, but I'd rather share the road with 10 attentive speeders, than 1 inattentive moron religiously adhereing to the psoted limit. Exceeding the speed limit by a mild factor on the open toad is not more dangerous if you are alert, involved, slowing appropiately, not taking risks passing in stupid places etc. As they have working out in the UK most of all crashes are some form of inattention, and hey thats my point.

However many people who exceed the speed limit are driving like munters, and so rather than asess skill, cars capability etc, it's a lot easier to throw a blanket limit on, one that takes into account the sorry state of our roads, many of the cars, and the apalling driving skill's of many NZ'ers.

My current radar detector includes a spped disply that is based on GPS - this allows me to check my speed without taking my eyes off the road - it also compensates for the outlanders invisible bloody speedo (if you are driving in bright daylight with sunglasses on the speedo is in such a dark recessed hole you can't actually see the freakin speedo).

On detection - it's almost useless as the cops now turn their radars on to zap you and get a reading - they usually don't leave them on. So if people with radar detectors are speeding they will get caught like anyone else (my last ticket Novemer 06 driving north out of Wiaiouru). What it does mean is that if the cops zap the car in front you have a chance to check your spped and ensure you havn't crept over the limit.

I have been done by a cop at the bottem of a steep hill on the western access of taupo, with a nasty steep hill to get up. Empty road other than me and a cop, 115kph, fine day, and no tickets in over 10 years. He asked if I'd had any tickets recently and i said none in over 10 years, which he checked. he then daid "You are right, no tickets, surprising, so heres your reward" and gave me a ticket. The very next week I got a V1 - when that was stollen I got the Escort 9500.

The other thing it can alert me to is the cop at the end of a passing lane, so you can forget passing the munter who has just sped up from 80kph to 105kph.

Much worse is the mufti cop who is driving about 85 when you can't safely pass then speeding up to just barely under 100kph when you could (November 07 SHW1 north of Tokoroa). Without a radar detector I would have been done for speeding to get past a prick who happens to be a policeman, but shouldn't be one.

I especially like having the detector as it warns me that all hell may be about to break loose as the innocent holden SV6 coming the otherway (a mufti cop) pings the guy who just passed me, and decides he can execute a quick turn right in front of me (to the point i have to break to avoid hitting him). This sort of shite has resulted in accidents, 2 late last year, caused by cops attempting to give chase to mildly speeding motorcycles.

Or the roadwork signs left out near Ohakune a couple of years back, it had been resealed, and 3 days later (it was a long weekend) the signs were still there - 30kph signs. people were slowing to about 70kph - there was no reason for the speed restiction evident, all the loose metal was off the road, and our V1 went off, so we slowed right down. Didn't have to worry as there were 2 cops patrolling, both with victems who were psossibly discovering their cautious 70kph was 40kph over.

Charming stuff - and nothing to do with road safety.

Edited June 16, 2008 by jimbo

[Jeddy 0]

No offence Jimbo but i can't be f**ked reading all that, especially this late.

Re the hiding it in the bumper: Will be interesting to see what people will do to improvise IF(I have my doubts)this becomes law. Read a bit about it the other day any some are quite cleaver

[Avenged.SSE 0]

I don't think our road system is designed to be interesting and involving, if you need interest and involvement then the track is the place to be, there is a reason that the speed limit exists - and that's safety, obviously they must have had good reason to set it at 50km/h, hence 10 attentive speeders are not much better than one inattentive driver, you're looking at both extreme 'wrongs' of the spectrum. By speeding you're becoming a potential risk to other

drivers, I'm sure most people that speed regard their driving as exceptional, so this is realy irrelevent to the problem at hand.

When I first found out about radar detectors I couldn't believe they were legal, it's basically an invitation to speed, obviously this is disregarding the few permissible reasons people here have presented, the reality is that the majority of people get them so they can freely exceed the limit without worrying about cops, that's reality.

[Nic325i 0]

I don't think our road system is designed to be interesting and involving, if you need interest and involvement then the track is the place to be, there is a reason that the speed limit exists - and that's safety, obviously they must have had good reason to set it at 50km/h, hence 10 attentive speeders are not much better than one inattentive driver, you're looking at both extreme 'wrongs' of the spectrum. By speeding you're becoming a potential risk to other

drivers, I'm sure most people that speed regard their driving as exceptional, so this is realy irrelevent to the problem at hand.

When I first found out about radar detectors I couldn't believe they were legal, it's basically an invitation to speed, obviously this is disregarding the few permissible reasons people here have presented, the reality is that the majority of people get them so they can freely exceed the limit without worrying about cops, that's reality.

I think you are very much mistaken if you think there is a solid reason for a speed limit at 50 rather 40 or 60. If the reasons were that good then there would be FAR more variation in "open road" speed limits - it is not rational that the speed limit on the straights of the Hauraki plains is the same as the limit 10km further on once the road gets twistier. Equally, having the same speed limit on motorways (where there is no chance of people turning across the road, no chance of head on crash) and on state highways with cars, tractors, kids etc crossing the road is not based on sound reasoning.

You say that a radar detector is an invitation to speed. I read a persuasive argument recently (Peter Gill or Brian Cowan?) suggesting that radar detectors actually worked FOR road safety by increasing the area of effect of police cars - i.e. making them "visible" from a long distance, hence slowing down traffic. If everyone had a detector and the police relied solely on cars rather than cameras, the roads would be safer.

As has been said before, "Speed kills" is just about the ultimate in lazy arguments.

[Mike 1]

Well, nowadays teenagers text while riding bicycle single handed and without helmets. Obviously, TXTing is more important than life!

pussies, you don't even need one hand on the bars. that can be used for carrying a stubby

sorry, back OT

[Jeddy 0]

If everyone had a detector and the police relied solely on cars rather than cameras, the roads would be safer.

If everyone had radars mine would be turned off as the interference would drive me nuts

[Avenged.SSE 0]

I think you are very much mistaken if you think there is a solid reason for a speed limit at 50 rather 40 or 60. If the reasons were that good then there would be FAR more variation in "open road" speed limits - it is not rational that the speed limit on the straights of the Hauraki plains is the same as the limit 10km further on once the road gets twistier. Equally, having the same speed limit on motorways (where there is no chance of people turning across the road, no chance of head on crash) and on state highways with cars, tractors, kids etc crossing the road is not based on sound reasoning.

You say that a radar detector is an invitation to speed. I read a persuasive argument recently (Peter Gill or Brian Cowan?) suggesting that radar detectors actually worked FOR road safety by increasing the area of effect of police cars - i.e. making them "visible" from a long distance, hence slowing down traffic. If everyone had a detector and the police relied solely on cars rather than cameras, the roads would be safer.

As has been said before, "Speed kills" is just about the ultimate in lazy arguments.

"In 2006, speeding was a contributing factor in 107 fatal traffic crashes, 395 serious injury crashes and 1339 minor injury crashes. These crashes resulted in 126 deaths, 557 serious injuries and 2189 minor injuries. The total social cost of crashes involving drivers speeding was about $765 million this is approximately a quarter of the social cost associated with all injury crashes." ~ http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/NewPDF...07-July-web.pdf

It seems in that case the overwhelming statistics DO lie, and it is indeed a lazy argument.... Come on, unless you're absolutely naive you would realize that the number one reason for getting a radar detector would be to comfortably cruise at what ever speed you want without getting caught by cops (as shown by the number of tickets people receive). This is why the overwhelming majority would get one. In regards to no chance of crashes on state highways, you've obviously missed the point of how by speeding you're becoming a danger to other DRIVERS, if you are approaching a car doing 80km/h while you're doing 120+ there's always the chance you're going to crash.

The radar detector is not just going to be active on the motorway anyway, it will also be active on the suburbs, were you can speed all you like, providing you check it to make sure no cops are around, what's going to stop the majority from speeding in the suburbs if they speed on the motorway? Commonsense? Ha! And yes, I can also argue that being tipsy generally makes you more alert, hence better for safety, obviously all the statistics are against me, same with reality, but I can still argue for it.

Police speed enforcement is a form of social control, albeit, a needed one given the fact that it seems most people don't know their driving capacity, not everyone is a brilliant driver. It's very funny because many of you will sit there and denigrate people on the dole, yet speeding (with $765mil) contributes excessively to the tax budget. If police relied solely on cars, then I'd hate to think of all the teenage kids, or immature adults testing their 0-100km/h in the suburbs...

[Nic325i 0]

"In 2006, speeding was a contributing factor in 107 fatal traffic crashes, 395 serious injury crashes and 1339 minor injury crashes. These crashes resulted in 126 deaths, 557 serious injuries and 2189 minor injuries. The total social cost of crashes involving drivers speeding was about $765 million this is approximately a quarter of the social cost associated with all injury crashes." ~ http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/NewPDF...07-July-web.pdf

It seems in that case the overwhelming statistics DO lie, and it is indeed a lazy argument.... Come on, unless you're absolutely naive you would realize that the number one reason for getting a radar detector would be to comfortably cruise at what ever speed you want without getting caught by cops (as shown by the number of tickets people receive). This is why the overwhelming majority would get one. In regards to no chance of crashes on state highways, you've obviously missed the point of how by speeding you're becoming a danger to other DRIVERS, if you are approaching a car doing 80km/h while you're doing 120+ there's always the chance you're going to crash.

The radar detector is not just going to be active on the motorway anyway, it will also be active on the suburbs, were you can speed all you like, providing you check it to make sure no cops are around, what's going to stop the majority from speeding in the suburbs if they speed on the motorway? Commonsense? Ha! And yes, I can also argue that being tipsy generally makes you more alert, hence better for safety, obviously all the statistics are against me, same with reality, but I can still argue for it.

Police speed enforcement is a form of social control, albeit, a needed one given the fact that it seems most people don't know their driving capacity, not everyone is a brilliant driver. It's very funny because many of you will sit there and denigrate people on the dole, yet speeding (with $765mil) contributes excessively to the tax budget. If police relied solely on cars, then I'd hate to think of all the teenage kids, or immature adults testing their 0-100km/h in the suburbs...

Without wanting to get into a massive debate/argument about this, I still disagree on several points.

I did not say there was no chance of crashes on state highways, or deny that people would have a radar detector to allow them to cruise at speed when cops aren't around. I don't think I said that police shouldn't enforce speed limits either.

What I tried to say was that someone with a radar detector is more likely to be aware of, and slow down because of, cops. Therefore if there were a lot more cops with radars being detected, people would have to limit their speed. I also think that a lot of the problem at the moment is that vastly different roads have the same limit. I find it unintuitive for highly safe motorways to have the same speed limit (or lower limit in certain cases) than far less safe country roads. It should be a judgement thing, but it is pretty clear that some people don't have that judgement.

Regarding the statistics given, I have no doubt they are correct, but statistics don't tell you everything. I bet that very few of the accidents were caused only by speed, yet this receives the lions share of enforcement.

I have no idea how having more cop cars would result in more people testing their 0-100 times in the suburbs - surely it is much easier to pick a spot away from a speed camera than away from a roving cop car?

[Eagle 1662]

Main reason i have a radar is for passing people,. Alot safer imo passing where there are no passing lanes & going a bit over the limit(esp when the fools speed up) than to take longer to pass and hold up people behind you.

Don't remember the amount of times ive seen cops at the end of passing lanes, law pisses me off. Gotta get the money

[jochen 4]

Here in Europe, radar detectors are illegal in Switzerland, Germany and Austria.

Reason is: you are not allowed to speed, and you are not allowed to have systems that will identify police enforcement and thus provide you with an ability to bypass the law enforcement points (speed cameras)

[jimbo01 0]

"In 2006, speeding was a contributing factor in 107 fatal traffic crashes, 395 serious injury crashes and 1339 minor injury crashes. These crashes resulted in 126 deaths, 557 serious injuries and 2189 minor injuries. The total social cost of crashes involving drivers speeding was about $765 million this is approximately a quarter of the social cost associated with all injury crashes." ~ http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/NewPDF...07-July-web.pdf

It seems in that case the overwhelming statistics DO lie, and it is indeed a lazy argument.... Come on, unless you're absolutely naive you would realize that the number one reason for getting a radar detector would be to comfortably cruise at what ever speed you want without getting caught by cops (as shown by the number of tickets people receive). This is why the overwhelming majority would get one. In regards to no chance of crashes on state highways, you've obviously missed the point of how by speeding you're becoming a danger to other DRIVERS, if you are approaching a car doing 80km/h while you're doing 120+ there's always the chance you're going to crash.

The radar detector is not just going to be active on the motorway anyway, it will also be active on the suburbs, were you can speed all you like, providing you check it to make sure no cops are around, what's going to stop the majority from speeding in the suburbs if they speed on the motorway? Commonsense? Ha! And yes, I can also argue that being tipsy generally makes you more alert, hence better for safety, obviously all the statistics are against me, same with reality, but I can still argue for it.

Police speed enforcement is a form of social control, albeit, a needed one given the fact that it seems most people don't know their driving capacity, not everyone is a brilliant driver. It's very funny because many of you will sit there and denigrate people on the dole, yet speeding (with $765mil) contributes excessively to the tax budget. If police relied solely on cars, then I'd hate to think of all the teenage kids, or immature adults testing their 0-100km/h in the suburbs...

Last year I watched an episode of the NZ show "Motorway Patrol". On the Auckland motorway, in the wet, a car with serriously bald tyres had rear ended another car. Mr Plod turns his head and anounces, like he actually believes it; "a clear case of excessive speed". And that kiddies is how we get the sorts of stats that suggest speed is the route of all evil.

If we had sensible enforcement of speed, people would not percieve a need for radar detectors.

Example; if you are passing someone doing 90kph it is far safer to do so quickly at 120kph than try and creep past at 100. The time you spend on the wrong side of the road is massively reduced. However 110 and over and yo are nicked. It's nice to know before you commence to safely overtake that there isn't a cop about.

Example; actually giving tickets to people who choose to drive slowly, and hold up traffic. At time I drive slow, for example if one of the kids is feeling unwell on the Rimutaka Hill, I just pull over on the many corners and let any cars go past. It's not hard, just takes a little comman sense and respect for other drivers. And if you have every car on the road wanting to do 100kph, passing a car doing 90kph, you have a huge number of cars spending a hell of a long time on the oposite side of the road. With heavy traffic volumns this gets even worse. I don't want to speed, I want to able to travel at 100kph to 110kph. What I don't want to be is pinged for speeding when i'm safely passing a car. My wifes 1st and only speeding ticket was near National park where she finally passed a truck and trailer after being sprayed in effluence for many kilometers - her crime? doing 114kph - why - so tthe other 4 cars behind her could also have a chance of passing the moving roadsblock on the small passing lane.

The defacto speed limit is actually 60kph, where it says 50kph (except outside schools where it is 55kph), and the defacto speed limit for the open road is actually 110kph. Now if the speed limit for an area is deemed to be 50kph for safety reasons, like it's a residential street, allowing someone to go 60kph is just plain stupid, and the same token someone managing 110kph up the Rimutaka hill won't get a ticket unless they cross the centre line, yet they will be on the ragged edge of disaster. Someone doing 110kph on a 2 lane, separated motorway is another case again, they could go 120 and still be safer than our friend not legally speeding up Rimutaka Hill.

And if safety is such a concern how come they allow a speed limit of 70kph outside a mahor school in MT Manganui when 40kph is what most commentators say is the maximum spped you can hit a child and expect they have a better chance of living, than dying. And just a couple of weks ago a girl was killed by a logging truck that didn't even notice. Now that stupid - that dangerous, thats a safety issue - but hey 70kph is legal.

Enforce the speed limit with zero tolleence where there are safety issues, remember th old "black spot" signs, and initally as part of an orchestrated softening up of the NZ public thats where speed cameras went. "we are only concerned about safety" they said. The black spot signs were replaced with speed camera zone signs, then they took away all the signs and just stuck speed cameras where they wanted. The black spots were a useful reminder to slow down, as were the roadside crosses. If I saw a corner with 5 or 6 crosses - oh yes - I slowed down and paid attention. When i saw a black spot, yep and I focused my attention, as obviously the risk was higher here than on other areas. Yet they have quietly removed all these passive saety reminders.

The trouble is many people in NZ beleive the propaganda, perhaps its the flouride in the water, or just living too close to all those sheep. The facts from overseas do not support the blinkered focus on speed. In any cases increased speed limited resulted in fewer accidents. Stricter enforcement and zero tollerance of spped limits, as in Australia has seen some record accident rates in holiday weekend. Statiscial error cry the true beleivers BUT the correlation isn't there. Recent UK studies point the finger firmly at INATTENTION, with speed a much lower factor.

[jimbo01 0]

I don't think our road system is designed to be interesting and involving, if you need interest and involvement then the track is the place to be, there is a reason that the speed limit exists - and that's safety, obviously they must have had good reason to set it at 50km/h, hence 10 attentive speeders are not much better than one inattentive driver, you're looking at both extreme 'wrongs' of the spectrum. By speeding you're becoming a potential risk to other

drivers, I'm sure most people that speed regard their driving as exceptional, so this is realy irrelevent to the problem at hand.

When I first found out about radar detectors I couldn't believe they were legal, it's basically an invitation to speed, obviously this is disregarding the few permissible reasons people here have presented, the reality is that the majority of people get them so they can freely exceed the limit without worrying about cops, that's reality.

Dude if you are driving on the road and are not "interested and involved" take public transport.

UK studies have fingered inattention as their major cause of accidents. Inattentaion is another way of saying uninterested and uninvolved.

I checked the NZ stats a few years ago - to my surprise the catergory of "inattention" has relatively few % in it. Apparently "didn't see (the invisble?) other vehicle", or "crossed centre line (for no apparent reason)", and the "vehicle left road" are recorded separately from "Inattention".

That's alright I'll stay interested and involved when I'm drivng to make up for the inattentive peole who are actually causing most of the accidents. Others will contine to think (encouraged by stupid adverts) that driving at 100kph magically protects them. Sorry but when that other inattentive driver crosses into your lane you better be awake, you better react in a split second - opps too late.

[Avenged.SSE 0]

So you're saying because people are not interested in driving they should take public transport? That's quite a statement in itself don't you think?

So you believe that implementing and enforcing speed limits is propaganda because in overseas countries it's different. First, can you please post some evidence of this, secondly.... Consider how strict overseas rules are, would you be happy if we implement an overseas approach and allow for faster speed limits providing all cars, say older than 6 years old are scraped (similar to Singapore) or as in Germany - much more extensive checks for cars or in other European countries extensively limiting modification to cars?

This isn't even taking into account the difference in road structure and highway structure, with all the merging and what not. So in short you can't have everything - either live with everything as is, or have faster speed limits with stricter rules regarding cars.

100Km/h is not going to make you absolutely SAFE but 100-110 makes you SAFER than 120km/h. Something you're not quite getting. The faster the car is, the harder it becomes to control, and as overtly stated again and again, that extra 10km/h can make the difference between life and death if you hit someone or someone else hit you.

P.S. Dental/skeletal fluorosis and sheep certainly DO seem to contribute to our commonsense approach to the issue!

[Edit]And Lol @ inattention = uninterested. How about overly interested? how about checking out every car on the road, and or the scenery? Or perhaps most importantly under the inattention heading... Conversations? These all qualify as inattention, no?

Edited June 17, 2008 by Avenged.SSE