Cops and the 4 kmh over posted speed limits

[FIAT 131R 223]

Yep crime is dropping because people have learned it is a waste of bloody time even reporting it. The cops need the public to solve crimes. Their revenue grabbing and failures will backfire on them If I am asked by the cops did I see something I will be very selective with my answers. The only person in NZ who loves the cops,4km limits above posted limits and revenue gathering and the government is Nathan. They have a long way to go with their propaganda to brainwash the rest of us who actually think and know what is going on.

[M3AN 4016]

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/

BS.

I asked what "speeding" means? In absolute terms 101km/h is "speeding" but that's not going to make a difference at all.

So, I ask again, define "speeding".

Or, with all respect, stop spouting BS statistics...

[zero 1162]

Well that escalated quickly.

Dictionary.com says

"the act or practice of exceeding the speed limit"

As for the stats, if you bothered to look at them you would see they are broken down into different speeds over the limit.

[zero 1162]

Yep crime is dropping because people have learned it is a waste of bloody time even reporting it. The cops need the public to solve crimes. Their revenue grabbing and failures will backfire on them If I am asked by the cops did I see something I will be very selective with my answers. The only person in NZ who loves the cops,4km limits above posted limits and revenue gathering and the government is Nathan. They have a long way to go with their propaganda to brainwash the rest of us who actually think and know what is going on.

Rofl.

So you will obstruct police investigations because you dont like them?

Lets hope you never need the police for anything.

To be clear, I don't 'love' the 4 km over limit - I just don't blame someone else if I get caught breaking the law.

[M3AN 4016]

Well that escalated quickly.

Dictionary.com says

"the act or practice of exceeding the speed limit"

As for the stats, if you bothered to look at them you would see they are broken down into different speeds over the limit.

Escalation is probably because I get emotional about this sh*t. I know what "speeding" is and it's got nothing to do with the posted limit. That intelligent people are indoctrinated to believe/accept this dismays me.

Speeding can be interpreted as two things:

1. Exceeding the posted limit; or,

2. Exceeding the limit of safe conditions

Anybody that thinks #1 is accurate needs to spend a little more time reading.

I can easily navigate the Waikato expressway on a fine day at 180km/h without endangering anybody. I accept that if I wreck at 180 the damage will be more than if I do so at 100 but the point is, save mechanical failure, my chances of wrecking at 180 are not more than at 100.

Just rolling out a "speed" reasoning strikes me as ignorant.

Edited January 6, 2016 by M3AN

[_ethrty-Andy_ 2132]

Speed is a FACTOR in all crashes

It is not a CAUSE, it's a consequence of poor decision making at the time of driving, choice of tyres etc.

[KwS 2425]

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

Oh pull the other one. Thats a 12kph combined increase in a head on, it wouldnt make a lick of difference, but its impossible to prove with normal stats because of the variation in car safety features and pure luck.

Im with Dave on the whole "speed" thing. In the stats, what criteria makes "speed" a factor, exceeding the limit by a single kph? I find it hard to believe that there are many crashes where speed alone was a factor, where the car was traveling under 20kph over the limit (under 20kph over, there will be other factors, like driver talent running out, bald tyres, alcohol etc). That then becomes excessive speed, which can be dangerous.

[FIAT 131R 223]

Rofl.

So you will obstruct police investigations because you dont like them?

Lets hope you never need the police for anything.

To be clear, I don't 'love' the 4 km over limit - I just don't blame someone else if I get caught breaking the law.

I didn't say anything about obstructing Police. Needing the Police and getting them are two very different things. I see from reading back that you are a chippie. That must be why reading your posts made me think of short planks.

[Olaf 3317]

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

you said it yourself - whilst regurgitating the party line - contributing factors.

ask: what was the cause?

stop drinking the koolaid, ask the questions.

[Matth5 471]

you said it yourself - whilst regurgitating the party line - contributing factors.

ask: what was the cause?

stop drinking the koolaid, ask the questions.

You can throw in speed as a contributing factor to any accident really, so I do think that figure is pretty useless.

I do think we need to be a bit more relaxed about speed limits in general and focus on correct driving. Overtaking safely, paying attention to the road, slowing down when there are hazards around... just that stuff is harder to enforce.

We need cameras that snap drivers going past and the ones that can be seen on their phones or doing silly stuff in general get fined. Not ones triggered just by speed.

Get a cop to skim through the photos and pick out any that need attention.

We need a system that doesn't just focus on speed because it's near useless as it is.

Going 115 km/h on a completely empty road can easily get you a fine, but it harms nobody. And who gives a crap about people not wearing their seat-belt, if risking your own life is a crime then extreme sports would be outlawed too. No need to spend resources protecting people from themselves, it gets in the way of evolution

[polley 916]

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/

That was interesting, just read the motorcycle crash data. I assume car data is similar in the way that it's always the drivers fault (or another driver). Road conditions aren't considered at all.

The crash I saw happen the other week that involved 3 motorcyclists go off the road would probably come under "motorcyclist veered off road / lost control" no mention of or taking into account the tar bleed and gravel all over the road mid corner on a blind corner.

[polley 916]

Seen a few crashes, some serious ones over the last few months, and the difference between going 100kph or 120kph would of prevented none of them.

[kwhelan 241]

How do you know?

Im beginning to think your just trolling this thread to have a laugh.

funnily enough in your speed crash data graph they say excessive speed for conditions, and 6kms for a holiday period alters that?

if you take out the unlicensed,disqualified and never held license columns leaves the fully license crash rate at only 10% which sounds about right to me,

then add in the unwarranted and unsafe cars

why should average family be penalised for incidental speed because of the idiots who ignore any limits and crash because of grossly excessive speed,no limit would ever save them from themselves

back to the original point of topic

there is no justification for any sane thinking person in the policy of lowering the limit for the holidays except to make more money and it makes me nervous to think we have paid staff (re police) who actually believe that it does and will give you a lecture from their lofty I've just saved your life arrogance. it discredits their intelligence in general in my opinion and therefore my respect for them.

name another job which has to meet a quota for issuing tickets,

save lives BS, make revenue

if they want to save lives crush more cars and really ping the disqualified and unlicensed and the heavily intoxicated repeat offenders would be a huge start,

bring back a seperate police and traffic dept because the idiots in traffic are going to discredit the police to their level in public opinion which is already at an all time low

Edited January 6, 2016 by kwhelan

[MD13 494]

Maybe it's the police version of holiday surcharge? I pay more at the cafe during public holidays too.

[Docile 64]

in my view, the root cause of all crashes are stupid idiot people. speed is just a byproduct of this.

you can kill someone going at slower speeds i.e. 40km/h

you can easily have an accident going 80 - 100km/h (with bald tires / distractions etc)

falling asleep on the wheel can get you killed at any speed.

having unbuckled kids / people in the car

a few months ago i saw a car right in front of me got T boned at an intersection running the red light. He was going no faster than 50 - 60km crossing that intersection and the car that hit him was going roughly the same.

in conclusions:

idiots, the lack of education and lack/lapse of judgement is what kills.

who here honestly believes that we get the driving education we need by just passing our restricted / full licenses?

[Allanw 1071]

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

So - head on collision you say: Is SPEED the cause of the death, or is that someone in ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD?

What is the CAUSE?

Well, if the speeds were less, the accident may be "less fatal", maybe avoided even. However, if that speed was then under the speed limit, "Speeding" is not a cause, but "Speed" maybe (as in not suitable for the conditions).

Having said all that, if one car was NOT on the wrong side of the road, what would the RESULT be? NO ACCIDENT, so what was the CAUSE of the accident?

A head-on accident is CAUSED by someone being where they shouldn't, either by loss of control, or by choosing to do it. The speed limit, and the vehicle speed are not really relevant, because the driver did it WRONG.

[KwS 2425]

but if they were doing 6kph less, they wouldve stayed in their side of the road, and lived! Geez, its not that hard!

[Allanw 1071]

That was interesting, just read the motorcycle crash data. I assume car data is similar in the way that it's always the drivers fault (or another driver). Road conditions aren't considered at all.

The crash I saw happen the other week that involved 3 motorcyclists go off the road would probably come under "motorcyclist veered off road / lost control" no mention of or taking into account the tar bleed and gravel all over the road mid corner on a blind corner.

The rode code does say:

You must drive at a safe speed. This means that:

• on a road with lanes, you must be able to stop in the length of clear road you can see in front of you
• on a road with no lanes, you must be able to stop in half the length of clear road you can see in front of you.

Which technically means you should always be able to stop before you hit anything that's already on the road. We know you have to actually see the stuff before you take action though (which you must account for), but this rule technically makes it ALWAYS your fault

Which technically means you end up driving WELL under the speed limit on some roads (like mine - super hilly and winding) but they still bother to make it a 100 limit.

[kwhelan 241]

but if they were doing 6kph less, they wouldve stayed in their side of the road, and lived! Geez, its not that hard!

unless it wasn't a holiday? in which case they wouldn't have been speeding at all ,DOH

so if we cancel all holidays the road toll will be fantastically low and we will all live happily ever after

[polley 916]

The rode code does say:

You must drive at a safe speed. This means that:

• on a road with lanes, you must be able to stop in the length of clear road you can see in front of you
• on a road with no lanes, you must be able to stop in half the length of clear road you can see in front of you.

Which technically means you should always be able to stop before you hit anything that's already on the road. We know you have to actually see the stuff before you take action though (which you must account for), but this rule technically makes it ALWAYS your fault

Which technically means you end up driving WELL under the speed limit on some roads (like mine - super hilly and winding) but they still bother to make it a 100 limit.

Would of been able to stop easily if the road wad in a useable condition.

[zero 1162]

I think alot of posters here have misunderstood my point, and maybe that's because I didn't communicate it clearly enough.

My point is, if people don't want to pay fines, don't break the law.

Simple.

And if you CHOOSE to break the law, don't blame others.

I've been busted for speeding before, but the only one to blame is myself.

[gjm 3258]

I think alot of posters here have misunderstood my point, and maybe that's because I didn't communicate it clearly enough.

My point is, if people don't want to pay fines, don't break the law.

Simple.

And if you CHOOSE to break the law, don't blame others.

I've been busted for speeding before, but the only one to blame is myself.

As a statement, this is entirely true. In isolation, it is not shortsighted or missing any specific points.

[KwS 2425]

I think alot of posters here have misunderstood my point, and maybe that's because I didn't communicate it clearly enough.

My point is, if people don't want to pay fines, don't break the law.

Simple.

And if you CHOOSE to break the law, don't blame others.

I've been busted for speeding before, but the only one to blame is myself.

I didnt choose to go 4kph over past the speed camera. no, i chose to watch the road, traffic around me and the bucketing down rain instead. I shouldnt have to watch my speedo that closely, instead of watching for all the numerous hazards. 10kph tolerance is plenty and rarely exceeded in my case, but 4kph is a twitch of the needle.

[hotwire 352]

Im beginning to think your just trolling this thread to have a laugh.

funnily enough in your speed crash data graph they say excessive speed for conditions, and 6kms for a holiday period alters that?

if you take out the unlicensed,disqualified and never held license columns leaves the fully license crash rate at only 10% which sounds about right to me,

then add in the unwarranted and unsafe cars

why should average family be penalised for incidental speed because of the idiots who ignore any limits and crash because of grossly excessive speed,no limit would ever save them from themselves

back to the original point of topic

there is no justification for any sane thinking person in the policy of lowering the limit for the holidays except to make more money and it makes me nervous to think we have paid staff (re police) who actually believe that it does and will give you a lecture from their lofty I've just saved your life arrogance. it discredits their intelligence in general in my opinion and therefore my respect for them.

name another job which has to meet a quota for issuing tickets,

save lives BS, make revenue

if they want to save lives crush more cars and really ping the disqualified and unlicensed and the heavily intoxicated repeat offenders would be a huge start,

bring back a seperate police and traffic dept because the idiots in traffic are going to discredit the police to their level in public opinion which is already at an all time low

Amen!

[gjm 3258]

I understand that year-on-year, the number of fatalities as a result of road traffic accidents over the seasonal period, during the time in which the lower or zero telerance towards speed limits is applied, has continued it rise. Dramatically, this year.