Speeding and speed limits

[gjm 3258]

This post has been bubbling away for a while, following the thread around the 4km/h tolerance of the posted speed limit.

Before we go any further, I want to say that I do not condone driving at excessive speed in any circumstance. People who drive at 100km/h in busy traffic on a multi-lane highway, diving back and forth across the lanes and even using the hard shoulder, are idiots. This is dangerous, and should be addressed by the police by banning the person responsible and fining them to the point where they wonder if they can afford Watties beans this week, or should they buy budget brand ones instead.

And don't blame the policeman who pulls you over. He's doing a job, following rules that have been handed to him. Many traffic cops become traffic cops because they enjoy driving, and not simply because they want to see you miserable, or spoil your fun.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Why do we obey speed limits? "Because it’s the law?” is regularly given as a supposedly credible argument, and ultimately, that is the reason many of us drive at 100km/h on SH1 (or wherever). Not because it is unsafe to travel at 105km/h, but because we are more concerned at that time with not getting a fine or endorsements than we are with making safe progress.

So, are speed limit laws right? Sometimes, yes. And sometimes, obviously not. They are merely legal.

Which means, it is not necessarily wrong to disobey them. And it may be very wrong indeed to adhere to them.

To start with, speed limits are a “one size fits all” imposition, and created in order to cater for the lowest common denominator. People do differ significantly in their abilities, including their ability to safely operate a car at higher (or lower) speeds.

A better-than-average driver who has had some training in high-speed vehicle handling and vehicle control is probably as or more “safe” (i.e., less likely to lose control of his or her vehicle) operating at say 120km/h on a road with a 100km/h posted limit as a worse-than-average driver with poor eyesight and reflexes and no vehicle control training on the same road at 80km/h. (SH4 southbound heading for Wanganui comes immediately to mind - following someone who crawled around corners at 20km/h less than the posted guide speed, yet accelerated like a demon on any straight stretches is incredibly frustrating for anyone who enjoys driving.)

Why should there be a one-size-fits-all standard? Why should better-than-average drivers be constrained – and punished – not for any harm they've caused but because they didn’t voluntarily accept being dumbed-down to the level mandated for the worse-than-average drivers?

How fast is “too fast”?

The only objective measure of driving “too fast” is an accident caused by loss of control due to driving too fast. Many people are being indoctrinated into believing that driving at x km/h increases the chances this loss of control will occur, but this is entirely hypothetical and by no means logically or empirically established. If it were axiomatic that the faster you go, the higher the odds of loss of control, then it ought to be “safer” (statistically and otherwise) to fly in a single engine Cessna at 120 MPH rather than a 757 at 400 MPH, and manned space flight would never have happened.

OK, different laws of physics apply, and there are very different training requirements. But cars are also very differently capable - grandad's old rust bucket may be able to reach 100km/h, but it wouldn't be safe almost regardless of who was behind the wheel. A shiny new M5 will easily double that, and (reaction times aside) be safer doing it.

In practice, "too fast" is simply faster than the dumbed-down and often arbitrary standard (speed limit). There is widespread belief, propagated by idiots in positions of credibility, that if they’re not comfortable driving faster than a certain speed, then anyone who drives at that speed – or faster – is driving “too fast.”

It is exactly like insisting that everyone walk at the pace of the slowest person on the sidewalk. And that anyone who jogs or runs is “reckless.” Unlike the difference between airspeeds, this is a comparable situation - is someone jogging in Auckland CBD at 6.30am stupid, reckless, or endangering anyone? (Let's leave aside the discussion around the sanity of anyone who jogs in the city at any time!) The same activity 2 hours later would be ridiculous - pavements and roads will be full of oeople heading for work.

Back on the ground, there is also no evidence to show faster drivers are involved in more accidents.

In the US, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration claims that 30 percent of all fatal accidents are “speed related.” 30%. So it is a minority regardless, but even this is misleading. It means that in less than 1/3 of cases, one of the drivers involved in the accident was assumed to be exceeding a reasonable speed for the conditions. It does not mean that speeding caused the accident. Research conducted by the Florida Department of Transportation showed that the percentage of accidents directly caused by speeding is very low, 2.2 percent.

The Transport Research Laboratory in the UK has come to very similar conclusions, scarily even quoting very similar figures from entirely independent research.

Note also that in these situations, it is excessive speed for the conditions that applies, not actual illegally exceeding the posted speed limit. Stats in action, again. Pick your information, but don't offer everything that is relevant.

Further, “Federal and state studies [in the US] have consistently shown that the drivers most likely to get into accidents in traffic are those traveling significantly below the average speed.”

Speed will be, or has been, a contributory factor in some accidents. However, inattention and incompetence are far more typically the reason, but there are no roadsigns forbidding these. And punishment is rarely meted out to offenders because while traffic police are watching for poor driving, they are more focused on speed.

Good drivers continuously adjust their speed to their skill level, conditions and so on – not mindlessly obeying an almost arbitrary number stuck on a post on the side of the road. And that’s how it ought to be. Posting signs suggesting speeds for given roads (and conditions, such as curves) as advisories can be helpful to drivers not familiar with a given road. NZ does this on many corners - this is an excellent idea, and not one I had seen before coming here.

But insisting on absolute adherence to a generic number as the “right” number for all drivers, at all times is both silly and unfair as well as counterproductive in that it encourages passive (and therefore mediocre/poor) driving while punishing (and thus discouraging) active, attentive (aka, better) driving.

But try telling that to the government f**kw!t who was recently quoted in the press saying tighter enforcement of highway speeds would lead to significant improvements in road safety.

[Ahmedsinc 414]

Most people in this little backwater of ours will agree with you. Also, most people in this little backwater will believe themselves to be far better drivers than they actually are. Most people will also believe themselves to be capable of independent and free thought, yet spend their lives slavishly devoted to the pursuit of capitalist consumerism, and vote according to the proclamations of the mass media.

While arbitrary rules are nearly always woefully inadequate, they unfortunately are the only way to maintain a singular 'unbiased' standard across a large population. I agree that when confronted with statistical and anecdotal proof the speed laws in this country prove themselves an ass. Be as it may, the law is law, and therefore must be upheld. Given also the woeful state of a great many of the local and state highways, balanced against the highly advanced machines driven by most people in this country, and reinforced with a driver licensing system that is designed to have subjects merely pass a test as opposed to demonstrably prove their fitness to pilot 1 - 3 tonnes of steel at 28 m/s, it comes as no surprise that the only effective weapon the Police perceive themselves to have is draconian enforcement.

Teach our young adults to drive safely, and introduce a system of proving competency at regular intervals, and watch our road toll nosedive.

Til then, lets all drive like terrified geriatrics for fear of being told off by those with Authoritah

[MoJoJoe 46]

enjoyed reading that, did you write that all by yourself? Its a quite interesting reflection on the subject, I agree with your whole concept but disagree with you on a few notes. The more speed the lesser reaction time, and different laws of physics would apply in an aero plane where it has the whole sky to maneuver and nothing really to consider an major obstacle, same would apply to someone walking or jogging down park. While I do believe some speed limits, signs etc are required to establish a ground foundation for the system for a larger population; I also believe this should be done within reason, as you say, not all drivers and cars are made erqual. I could understand a M5 cursing at 150/kmph in a open stretch of the highway away from other less capable cars or willing drivers but I wouldn't want to see it doing 200km + and beyond. Something like that should be taken to the track really, However I think a lot of the upholders of some "silly' laws subconsciously believe what you write but just won't show it. That said you should try to submit this piece to some news paper or something, see if they would publish it. Matt also has a nice point there with the "capitalist consumerism", couldn't agree more.

a little something that happend to me this week:

I live in the "winterless north" well I say don't buy into that term, the rain makes up for the chilly seasons. The police up here are usually few and far apart and a lot forgiving then those in big city ego trip criminals in uniforms you will come across in Hamilton, Auckland, Wellington, who walk around with a chip on their shoulder and have this "US vs THEM" mentality, just for wearing an unform that is given to them for upholding and enforcing the law. Not to become arrogant twats who think they are some big shot making up the law as they go by. Back on the Subject, We have plenty of open roads as well as long stretched relaxed highways through the country side, I admit when I am by myself in open roads or highway lanes with other cars far apart, I do find myself speeding over the limit, maybe I do 120 on a 100 limit highway, sometimes 140 for a brief while, or maybe 55 on a 50 zone. But usually i back down on the gas when I see my speed and avoid doing anything like that near populated areas and in the city. Only in open rural roads or highway when the opportunity arises, but I am not one of those ass hats who change lanes every 5 seconds. I have never had a speeding ticket in my entire life(and I have been driving in NZ roads for a decade now. Well recently I was going down a rural road just 2 km away from my home, I often go down this way to avoid traffic and its pretty straight, calm with a few twisty corners. All of a sudden it starts raining, as I enter a corner something goes wrong, my car slid, hydroplaned and as I tried to counter steer and firmly apply the brakes it did a 180 degree and ended up sliding down into a bushy ditch 10 feet away. A tourist saw me from 1km away, he came by and we called the police, it took them an hour to get there, I reported it and called a tow guy to tow me out. Turns out one of my rear tires blew which probably added to the slid. The officer takes my report, draws image of the section of the road and then says hes not going to fine me or give me any demerits on my license or anything but he doesn't believe my story and he handed me a paper "Due in court for wreck less driving".

Guy said I should probably pled guilty since If I pled not guilty they are going to keep calling and bothering me. So now I am due in court next month. I really dont think my end was heard and find the whole process just more waste of tax payers time and money. I could have just called a tow and not report it or they could have sent me a ticket instead. Anybody here had a similar experience of getting called to court for putting your car in a ditch? How does the whole process work? Should i just pled not guilty to the registrar? Does a Judge see you in front of the jury and lets you explain it?

Edited January 2, 2014 by MoJoJoe

[Phil-540i 166]

^^^Non-injury accident - didn't need reported...............

I agree with whats been written here Graham / Matt........I'll come back properly once my internet speed improves.........!!!! Its at smoke-signals' speed lately.......

Edit. From my perspective, some of the best driver's I see driving in NZ, have motorcycle riding experience. The reason they then end up as above 'average' car / truck drivers is because they are so aware of whats happening around them, whats happening under them, & they have good knowledge of what the conditions are.............

I'm a big fan of drivers making consistently good decisions & good choices, regardless of anything else really.

For myself as a driver, I drive assertively, I drive defensively, I drive to the conditions, & I drive to survive, so that I get to 'go home'. I drive within my skill limits, & within the vehicle's capabilities. And if I want to avoid tickets & demerit points, I drive within NZ traffic laws.

Not all people with agree with my mentality on how I see things - I'm ok with that.

'Illegal' & 'unsafe' are too totally different categories really - I've been on a road in the central south island, at 10.30 at night in a 4WD vehicle, 4WD engaged, where safest speed to go was around 35kph. Same road, in different circumstances & different time of the year, is probably a perfectly safe hypothetical 140kph cruise...........

Edited January 2, 2014 by Blue-540i

[MoJoJoe 46]

Op's sorry my bad Dave.

I just had another look after what you said, the paper and it said "Careless Driving" - Operated a car carelessly . ShouldI still ask for the free lawer or is it diffrent now?

"due in court for wreck less driving".

^ Lol. its a wreck alright.

[Phil-540i 166]

'Careless use of a motor vehicle' - where the standard of driving is below what could be reasonably expected of a prudent motorist in the same circumstances.........???

High odds your tyre deflated during the 180 pirouette / impact into ditch............???

Edit. You've called up, & especially dragged a police officer out to a 'non-event' as such, away from whatever he was doing at the time. He's 'attended', which means hes now got paperwork / reports to do. Its raining, so he's especially thrilled to bits.............I can understand the 'why' on him writing the ticket he did.........

Edited January 2, 2014 by Blue-540i

[_ethrty-Andy_ 2132]

i drive a 5 series, i will deflect anything i hit so i will be all right

[MoJoJoe 46]

'Careless use of a motor vehicle' - where the standard of driving is below what could be reasonably expected of a prudent motorist in the same circumstances.........???

High odds your tyre deflated during the 180 pirouette / impact into ditch............???

Edit. You've called up, & especially dragged a police officer out to a 'non-event' as such, away from whatever he was doing at the time. He's 'attended', which means hes now got paperwork / reports to do. Its raining, so he's especially thrilled to bits.............I can understand the 'why' on him writing the ticket he did.........

Could be. sh*t happens sometimes, should have just walked down and called a tow or one of the neighbours to pull me out with their truck. Maybe I should write to the judge, pled guilty describing the incident, and hand over my lisense in the letter? probably will be a months suspension, a $150 court fees. I have a clean track record apart from this incident. Not even a speeding ticket, Can I request diversion?

Should I speak to a JOP in the community law centers in town or go to court and speak to a free lawer.

[Phil-540i 166]

Yea, hindsight is a great thing sometimes ae. I dunno - if you've got a good track record etc like ya say, might pay to talk to the free lawyer & have a go at defending it........... as on a careless use charge you might find 'the walk' could be longer than a month if convicted...........

Edited January 2, 2014 by Blue-540i

[twisted 45]

^^ Agreed. 6 months or more usually.

[MoJoJoe 46]

Thanks Blue. Yea, I got a clean record. It happened at such a odd time that everybody is on a holiday. I'll go up to the town court house this/next week and see if I can speak to the free lawyer.

[Haitoman 110]

I'm in my 50's and have lived in the UK for the last 6 years. Since returning to NZ I realize how absolutely stupid our 100km/hr limit is compared to the 120-130km/hr I am used to. I drove motorways every day in England and saw no more than 5 police cars on them in 6 years, and never saw an accident (I'm sure they happened though). Always remember that some people are nervous drivers and are not comfortable driving fast - respect their feelings and abilities. Experience does count - so if you have been driving only a short time remember you are not invincible and follow one simple rule - don't take risks.

In the end we have no choice, the 100km/hr limit is the law and apart from the odd brain fart I grudgingly stick to it.

As for the OP...go to court and tell the judge you heard a loud bang as you went into the corner and ended up in the ditch. There is no proof you were careless as it could have been the tyre. He might give you the benefit of the doubt.

[_ethrty-Andy_ 2132]

As for the OP...go to court and tell the judge you heard a loud bang as you went into the corner and ended up in the ditch. There is no proof you were careless as it could have been the tyre. He might give you the benefit of the doubt.

Speculating the cause is one thing, but lying in a court of law is a slippery slope.

[allan 295]

Speed limits are set I believe by the powers to be ie local councils 50, 60, 80 zones, land transport 25, 45, 65, corner, dips, road conditions etc and police 104, 108, ticket issued or any combination of the above.

Speeding a result from a decision made by you weather to brake the speed limit or not you the driver has that

We may not like them but they are guide lines for the motoring public to use for their own safety. In that two other factors I believe need to be looked into and these may have been mentioned.

Obtaining a drivers license this has under gone a few changes in past years but knowing the road code and half hour driving test (or what ever the time maybe) is a far call from being behind the wheel of a modern car in the traffic conditions of today and physically and mentally coping. Some extra training needs to be looked ie skid control, driving safely mental attitude.It is all good to hold a license and driven for years but do you know how you will react if it all of a sudden hits the fan.To have been their done that under controlled conditions gives you that little bit more knowledge, control which could be the factor that saves your hide.

Roads

These vary dramatically in New Zealand from sealed 2,3 lane motor ways, tar sealed road,gravel, sand. Their is no doubt that traffic volumes have increased but imo the general roading system has not it has been a sticking plaster on a cut artery mentally for decades. The type of road construction used also needs to be improved upon.

Even at the end of the day if we had the best roads in the world, safest cars etc etc we will still have speed limits and speeders

[Haitoman 110]

Speculating the cause is one thing, but lying in a court of law is a slippery slope.

I agree, I don't condone lying but under the circumstances if the OP genuinely believes that the tyre was at fault, and there is no other way to be heard in court then a slight embellishment given that no-one was injured is harmless. In the end it comes down to self (wallet and licence) preservation.

[aja540i 1906]

A bit late now, but if you have an accident and no one is hurt, and the only property damaged is your own you are not legally required to call the police, IF THE POLICE ATTEND A VEHICLE ACCIDENT THEY HAVE TO CHARGE SOMEONE!!!

I found that out the hard way as well, plead not quilty, or get diversions. Talk to a lawyer.

As for the speed limit, break it if you want / need to ( i do), but its the law, dont complain when you get a ticket!!

[Phil-540i 166]

IF THE POLICE ATTEND A VEHICLE ACCIDENT THEY HAVE TO CHARGE SOMEONE!!!

I'd debate that bit - or is the 'have to' new.............

[Allanw 1071]

Well recently I was going down a rural road just 2 km away from my home, I often go down this way to avoid traffic and its pretty straight, calm with a few twisty corners. All of a sudden it starts raining, as I enter a corner something goes wrong, my car slid, hydroplaned and as I tried to counter steer and firmly apply the brakes it did a 180 degree and ended up sliding down into a bushy ditch 10 feet away.

Are you in Whangarei? If those marks just near my house (by the Caves) are yours along with the crushed vegetation... you certainly aren't the first to do it...

[aja540i 1906]

I'd debate that bit - or is the 'have to' new.............

Thats what i was told by my local friendly policeman, while he was writing up a careless driving charge!!

[Phil-540i 166]

I'd hate to see him in 'unfriendly' mode then....................

[Neal 545]

Its a country thing. NZers still try and drive like the roads are empty as per 60s & 70s, overtake on the left on multi lane roads , slow cars speed up on passing lanes, overly aggressive driving .... your not going to pass me .... following to close with no intent on passing etc etc. Given the opportunity to go quicker some people crash or end up causing accidents. For our speed limit to rise the standard of driving and predictability of drivers would need to go up so that we can all share the road.

Driven & ridden in Europe , South America and a few other places , yet when the speed increases the driving on NZ roads are the worst I've seen. Ask anyone from the UK or Germany that's moved here and they'd agree.

These days I leave the speed to the safety of track days , Motorcycle hillclimbs or overseas countries where you can expect people to follow safety guidelines. Feel safer in these circumstances at 200 kmh plus than at 90 kmh on our roads.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Neal

[kingkarl 136]

Most people will also believe themselves to be capable of independent and free thought, yet spend their lives slavishly devoted to the pursuit of capitalist consumerism,

Says the guy with the BMW :-P

[MoJoJoe 46]

@Andrew and Dave. Thanks. I will do that. Actually it took the police about an hour to get down, So I waited.(Yea I know, should have asked tat tourist to hitch me a ride back home where I could got one of my neighbors to pull it out, both of then have trucks). One of my neighbors has a law enforcement background, she came by the other day and said the same thing, that I should go up the the court next week and ask for the legal aid lawyer to defend me and prevent the court giving me a fine.

Are you in Whangarei? If those marks just near my house (by the Caves) are yours along with the crushed vegetation... you certainly aren't the first to do it...

Yes, I think that was me! Are you the same bmw driver that was stopped by that tourist?

Its a country thing. NZers still try and drive like the roads are empty as per 60s & 70s, overtake on the left on multi lane roads , slow cars speed up on passing lanes, overly aggressive driving .... your not going to pass me .... following to close with no intent on passing etc etc. Given the opportunity to go quicker some people crash or end up causing accidents. For our speed limit to rise the standard of driving and predictability of drivers would need to go up so that we can all share the road.

Driven & ridden in Europe , South America and a few other places , yet when the speed increases the driving on NZ roads are the worst I've seen. Ask anyone from the UK or Germany that's moved here and they'd agree.

These days I leave the speed to the safety of track days , Motorcycle hillclimbs or overseas countries where you can expect people to follow safety guidelines. Feel safer in these circumstances at 200 kmh plus than at 90 kmh on our roads.

Would you really consider NZ Roads, conditions and driver habits to be worse then South America? It cant be that bad, I have noticed what you said in Auckland and the big cities but not much of that here. On the "your not going to pass me" subject, I was once in Auckland few years ago being driven by a friend in his little car, there was a regular white jap van run by most tradesmen going slowly on the left lane. My friend speeds to pass him (we had to take a left at the coming intersection). Guy in the van slams on gas and creeps ahead of us like a mad man within seconds of us passing him, he stays near our car for a few seconds as if he would ram us over the road, then he speeds more pulls up right in front of us as my friend hits the break. All this over 1 lousy car length in a 50 zone.

Edited January 3, 2014 by MoJoJoe

[Ahmedsinc 414]

Says the guy with the BMW :-P

...that was bought for less than 3k and on the basis of proven safety rather than the badge glued to it. if a kia could prove mechanical reliability and soundness of engineering then i'd just as happily drive one. brands aren't important. surviving crashes is.

[MoJoJoe 46]

...that was bought for less than 3k and on the basis of proven safety rather than the badge glued to it. if a kia could prove mechanical reliability and soundness of engineering then i'd just as happily drive one. brands aren't important. surviving crashes is.

Sometimes Brands are Important.

Every time Surviving Crashes are important.

I would pick an 90's BMW over a safer new Honda/KIA.

off topic: nice price on the car. I am in the market for a good e36. wasn't expecting to get something decent for that much. are you considering selling yours by chance?