Cops and the 4 kmh over posted speed limits

[kwhelan 241]

why cant they implement something like an average speed/time traps instead? they have it in Aus.

from my understanding of it is, 1 camera at the beginning of a section (i.e. a 5km stretch of road) and 1 at the end. the system takes photo of your car at the beginning and at the end of the section and calculates how long it took you to do the 5km section. if it calculates you were speeding then you get a ticket.

that would have to be the most cruel state controlled punishment that I could think of and only be from some labour police state were we are all just zombies. I'd have to give up driving and become a passenger because I could not help myself and would be too frustrated to drive.

what annoys me is the NZ police having to close the entire road "SH and all" for 4hrs at every scene while they examine and photograph everything which just ruins everyones holidays and nerves and probably causes more accidents. Overseas the main concern is to get traffic flowing again,pull the wreckage to the side,hose it down and reopen the lane.

deaths/accidents occur and always will and there are cases when we want to blame someone but come on NZ police, what you do currently is really really bad management of time and resources.

[gjm 3258]

what annoys me is the NZ police having to close the entire road "SH and all" for 4hrs at every scene while they examine and photograph everything which just ruins everyones holidays and nerves and probably causes more accidents. Overseas the main concern is to get traffic flowing again,pull the wreckage to the side,hose it down and reopen the lane.

deaths/accidents occur and always will and there are cases when we want to blame someone but come on NZ police, what you do currently is really really bad management of time and resources.

I wrote to Auckland police suggesting that police officers carry folding screens that could be erected around an accident scene. This would shield those involved from traffic, and removes the possibility of rubber-necking, one of the biggest causes of hold-ups and more accidents in this situation.

I never received a reply.

[zero 1162]

For those of you that think speeding fines are just revenue gathering, there is a trick you can do so they dont gather any revenue.

Just dont break the law.

Simple.

[gjm 3258]

For those of you that think speeding fines are just revenue gathering, there is a trick you can do so they dont gather any revenue.

Just dont break the law.

Simple.

Very true.

The flipside is the "why?" behind 100km/h... Speeds between 56 and 65 mph have been shown to be the speeds at which a driver is most likely to doze off behind the wheel. 100km/h sits in the middle, at just over 62mph. As such, one argument for road safety would be to either reduce or increase the national speed limit.

[zero 1162]

This morning, a police motorcyclist was parked hidden by one of the bridge piers on SH1, northbound, between Alfriston and the Manukau exit.

I thought the role of the police was to prevent crime, not catch someone who had just committed an offence?

It will most likely prevent the person from breaking the law again by giving them a deterrent (fine / demerit points / loss of licence etc ).

If it doesn't, it will sure make them think twice before doing it again.

Most catch on quick but a few are slow learners and need bigger deterrents (bigger fines / loss of vehicle / jail-time / causing a crash / killing or injuring themselves or another motorist).

Speed causes 30% of serious injuries or deaths on our roads, so any deterrent is better than death IMO.

And police ARE trying to prevent speeding/drink driving/no seatbelts etc by way of advertising campaigns, road signs, and penalties for those breaking the law

Edited January 6, 2016 by zero

[zero 1162]

Very true.

The flipside is the "why?" behind 100km/h... Speeds between 56 and 65 mph have been shown to be the speeds at which a driver is most likely to doze off behind the wheel. 100km/h sits in the middle, at just over 62mph. As such, one argument for road safety would be to either reduce or increase the national speed limit.

A limit has to be chosen, whether its 80, 100 or 120 or something else.

The simple fact is, if you are tired and are not safe to drive - don't drive.

The two biggest causes of deaths/serious injury on our roads is speed and alcohol/drugs.

[polley 916]

Can't see it been speed, everyone's been doing 80kph for the last two months.

[gjm 3258]

Speed causes 30% of serious injuries or deaths on our roads, so any deterrent is better than death IMO.

I'm surprised at that figure. I'm not (yet!) disputing it, and accept that speed can be and is often a contributing factor - let's face it, if no-one was moving (zero speed) then there'd be no accidents. In order to keep this on topic we need to consider 'inappropriate speed' distinctly from 'speeding.'

The hard and fast argument stands - don't exceed the speed limit and you're very unlikely to be stopped for speeding. However, would this actually reduce the number of accidents on the roads? Research suggests the answer is maybe, and only very, very slightly.

The war on speed is a visible and public way for the police to be seen to be doing something, while filling government coffers. Like the speed limit, it is arbitrary rather than an application of research and fact.

[Red Dwarf 136]

i have heard their is a school of thought within the powers that be that they DONT WANT drivers to be taught to drive properly.

They've succeeded!

[zero 1162]

I'm surprised at that figure. I'm not (yet!) disputing it, and accept that speed can be and is often a contributing factor - let's face it, if no-one was moving (zero speed) then there'd be no accidents. In order to keep this on topic we need to consider 'inappropriate speed' distinctly from 'speeding.'

The hard and fast argument stands - don't exceed the speed limit and you're very unlikely to be stopped for speeding. However, would this actually reduce the number of accidents on the roads? Research suggests the answer is maybe, and only very, very slightly.

The war on speed is a visible and public way for the police to be seen to be doing something, while filling government coffers. Like the speed limit, it is arbitrary rather than an application of research and fact.

The common contributing factors to fatal and serious injury road crashes include:

• Speeding: 30 per cent
• Alcohol/drugs: 29 per cent
• Unrestrained occupants: 20 per cent
• Driver distraction: 8 per cent

http://beehive.govt.nz/release/2015-road-toll-disappointing

[zero 1162]

The war on speed is a visible and public way for the police to be seen to be doing something, while filling government coffers.

It only fills government coffers if you choose to break the law.

Don't get me wrong, I've been fined for speeding before, and also once for not wearing my seatbelt, but I dont try and blame it on others.

I chose to break the law by speeding, and therefore chose to 'fill government coffers'.

[zero 1162]

If they can't be bothered turning up when you get robbed or burgled why have cops with bloody cameras. Perhaps the cops need to be told we want them investigating real crime not revenue gathering. Burglars know they have a 95% chance of not being caught because they know they won't even be investigated.

To play devils advocate, if people weren't breaking the laws on our roads, cops would have more time and resources to investigate the burglaries etc.

With over 300 people per year dying on our roads, and thousands getting injured, not to mention the fiscial cost, it makes sense to try and curb that.

The less people breaking laws on our roads, means more cops and resources to stop burglaries etc.

[FIAT 131R 223]

that would have to be the most cruel state controlled punishment that I could think of and only be from some labour police state were we are all just zombies. I'd have to give up driving and become a passenger because I could not help myself and would be too frustrated to drive.

what annoys me is the NZ police having to close the entire road "SH and all" for 4hrs at every scene while they examine and photograph everything which just ruins everyones holidays and nerves and probably causes more accidents. Overseas the main concern is to get traffic flowing again,pull the wreckage to the side,hose it down and reopen the lane.

deaths/accidents occur and always will and there are cases when we want to blame someone but come on NZ police, what you do currently is really really bad management of time and resources.

The reason the cops do this huge delay thing is because on one occasion they were totally incompetent and got told off by a coroner. Now they err on the side of stupidity which they do so with considerable skill. It was their incompetence which caused the issue in the first place now they make us suffer for that.

To play devils advocate, if people weren't breaking the laws on our roads, cops would have more time and resources to investigate the burglaries etc.

With over 300 people per year dying on our roads, and thousands getting injured, not to mention the fiscial cost, it makes sense to try and curb that.

The less people breaking laws on our roads, means more cops and resources to stop burglaries etc.

Geeez talk about naive. It's about revenue gathering and finding burglars is not revenue positive. Have you read anything in this thread or do you often miss the bloody point.

[MD13 494]

To play devils advocate, if people weren't breaking the laws on our roads, cops would have more time and resources to investigate the burglaries etc.

With over 300 people per year dying on our roads, and thousands getting injured, not to mention the fiscial cost, it makes sense to try and curb that.

The less people breaking laws on our roads, means more cops and resources to stop burglaries etc.

Not sure that's true. Policing is not just a service but a business - in order to self fund to an extent. I think they'd lay staff off if they didn't pull in a certain amount of revenue on the roads. They'd simply say the requirement for the current level of policing has dropped so less staff required. They would not divert that resource to other criminal avenues.

Edited January 6, 2016 by MD13

[kwhelan 241]

To play devils advocate, if people weren't breaking the laws on our roads, cops would have more time and resources to investigate the burglaries etc.

With over 300 people per year dying on our roads, and thousands getting injured, not to mention the fiscial cost, it makes sense to try and curb that.

The less people breaking laws on our roads, means more cops and resources to stop burglaries etc.

You sound like you work for them and therefore firmly believe in your indoctrinated stance which as discussed on here is extremely weak under scrutiny, we all agree there has to be a limit ,its the hypocrisy as started in the topic header that they are dropping it to 4km to save lives. no one died doing the extra 6k/hr

the 3 mounted speed cameras in my town are all in 50km areas high density with no previous accident history whatsoever ,do you think that is to save lives?

most on here don't argue with the original speed limit and 10km amnesty.

I've just done 1000 kms in last few days and constant looking down at speedo every 60 secs because it crept up and around that 4km was really tiring distracting and dangerous, I noticed even on the motorway that constant looking at speedo while some sign flashes 80km going thru ngarunga gorge wellington actually causes you to drift around in the lane how is that safe?

my brother returned to auckland from Hawkes bay, got to bombay 5hrs,from there to north shore 6 hrs because of some accident,and no it wasn't a 747 that crashed into 4 lanes of traffic like you'd expect. absolute disgrace and arrogance

[zero 1162]

You sound like you work for them and therefore firmly believe in your indoctrinated stance which as discussed on here is extremely weak under scrutiny, we all agree there has to be a limit ,its the hypocrisy as started in the topic header that they are dropping it to 4km to save lives. no one died doing the extra 6k/hr

Haha, no I dont work for them and never have - I'm a chippy.

And 6ks per hour could be the difference between life and death in a head on accident.

Anyway the point I'm actually making is that those that accuse the cops of revenue gathering, have the power to choose whether they pay fines for speeding or not.

Its all about personal responsibility.

I've been snapped for speeding in the past and I dont blame the cops for the descisions I made to speed.

[zero 1162]

my brother returned to auckland from Hawkes bay, got to bombay 5hrs,from there to north shore 6 hrs because of some accident,and no it wasn't a 747 that crashed into 4 lanes of traffic like you'd expect. absolute disgrace and arrogance

I agree with you on this (unless it was necessary to save a life) and have had to deal with some of the increasingly over the top health and safety rules in my line of work too.

IMO in clearing a crash, safety of the occupants and other passing motorists should come first, then crash scene investigation second, then opening the road third.

Too often it seems it takes an incredibly long time to open the road.

[zero 1162]

Geeez talk about naive. It's about revenue gathering and finding burglars is not revenue positive. Have you read anything in this thread or do you often miss the bloody point.

There is a bigger picture here and that is the political one.

No ruling political party, especially the current one which still has ties to the centre right and right wing, wants increased crime or increased road deaths, as that effects re-election.

Crime rates have been dropping, but as soon as they climb you can guarantee the opposition will jump on it (as they should).

Therefore less burglaries, and less road accidents is in the governments best interest.

[zero 1162]

Can't see it been speed, everyone's been doing 80kph for the last two months.

This may be the case for the last two months as the most recent data is not out yet.

The below fact sheets document serious crash causes for the last year (2014).

http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/crashfacts/

[gjm 3258]

There is a bigger picture here and that is the political one.

No ruling political party, especially the current one which still has ties to the centre right and right wing, wants increased crime or increased road deaths, as that effects re-election.

Crime rates have been dropping, but as soon as they climb you can guarantee the opposition will jump on it (as they should).

Therefore less burglaries, and less road accidents is in the governments best interest.

But lower speed doesn't equate to less road accidents. The only time the toll has dropped was the very first year the zero-tolerance was introduced. The numbers of injuries and deaths have risen, on a case-by-case basis where tighter speeding tolerances have been applied, ever since.

A blinkered view is being used, and the real way to reduce the figures is not being addressed in any way.

[zero 1162]

But lower speed doesn't equate to less road accidents.

How do you know?

[Docile 64]

wasn't there that guy who did a burnout after a car meet, went out of control and hit an oncoming bike? i'm sure that guy wasn't nowhere near 'speeding' just a full on idiot.

[zero 1162]

Yea, speed is just one of the reasons for deaths on our roads at 30%.

Alcohol and drugs is an almost equal contributer ( 29% ).

Not wearing a seatbelt is 20%, but the 'idiot' factor is also a contributer.

I wonder how many deaths are from 'idiots' - must be pretty high.

A few years ago I was driving down the southern motorway near Penrose at night and came across a car stopped on the motorway facing the wrong way.

He had spun across the whole motorway and hit the median barrier.

I checked his pulse and he was still alive (just) but was unconcious and there was blood and alcohol everywhere.

I guess he could go in the alcohol AND the idiot column for driving when he was completely off his nut.

It was a very scary experience, but luckily no one else was injured.

[M3AN 4016]

People need to stop saying "speed" or "speeding" because it's meaningless and just dumb really.

What is "speeding"? It's certainly not +/-4km/h or even 10km/h.

I feel like I'm "speeding" (read: going really fast) at about 160, certainly not 120. So in my mind "speeding" is just useless terminology. Thus renders the last few pages of this thread a bit rubbish.

I regularly drove at 140km/h+, often 160km/h+ when living in Europe and driving in Germany. Didn't seem to have any problems with "speed".

"Speed" is absolutely *not* a cause of 30% of accidents, that's bullshit. *Excessive* speed possibly is.

Excessive "speed" is probably +40km/h beyond what the conditions permit. Which means most "speeding" statistics here are total bs.

Edited January 6, 2016 by M3AN

[zero 1162]

"Speed" is absolutely *not* a cause of 30% of accidents, that's bullshit. *Excessive* speed possibly is.

This is the complete quote;

"The common contributing factors to fatal and serious injury road crashes include:

• Speeding: 30 per cent
• Alcohol/drugs: 29 per cent
• Unrestrained occupants: 20 per cent
• Driver distraction: 8 per cent"

And here is the press release;

http://beehive.govt.nz/release/2015-road-toll-disappointing

And here is the data;

http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/roadcrashstatistics/motorvehiclecrashesinnewzealand

and

http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/crashfacts/