4 km/hr speed tolerance 2015

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › 4 km/hr speed tolerance 2015

1 | ... | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | ... | 24

13513 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5942

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1460405 2-Jan-2016 21:55

frankv: When I had my bus driver's licence back in the 1990s, the limit for buses was 100kph. I don't believe it has changed since.

@frankv lol, so because it was true in the 90's means it still the case? i think you need to go have a read of the road code again, rules change all the time.

it changed in 2004
http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/1358

frankv

5690 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3649

Lifetime subscriber

#1460406 2-Jan-2016 21:56

MikeB4:
frankv:
Correct. Parliament putting a blanket rule of 100 is just ridiculous. Some roads you can safely go way well above 100. Some roads that have a 100 limit you can barely do 50.

If a road is not suitable or conditions are such that the maximum is not appropriate the law prescribes that a lower speed be used.

Correct. But the law does not prescribe *what* that speed should be. We drivers are expected to assess what that appropriate lower speed is. The ridiculousness lies in expecting drivers to figure out what the safe speed is only up to an arbitrary speed, but not beyond.

sdav

846 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 193

#1460408 2-Jan-2016 21:59

frankv:
sdav: They can only hammer home the same things they see in all their serious crashes. At the end of the day the speed determines the outcome.

This is falling for the simplistic sound-bite propaganda. At the end of the day, the speed AT IMPACT (*if* there is an impact) is what determines the outcome.

Well of course. How did what I say contradict that?

frankv

5690 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3649

Lifetime subscriber

#1460409 2-Jan-2016 21:59

Jase2985:
frankv: When I had my bus driver's licence back in the 1990s, the limit for buses was 100kph. I don't believe it has changed since.

@frankv lol, so because it was true in the 90's means it still the case? i think you need to go have a read of the road code again, rules change all the time.

it changed in 2004
http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/1358

Thanks for that Jase... I haven't needed to worry about that for 15 years. Are you sure it hasn't changed back since 2004? Rules change all the time. lol

MikeB4

18464 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12124

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1460410 2-Jan-2016 21:59

frankv:
MikeB4:
frankv:
Correct. Parliament putting a blanket rule of 100 is just ridiculous. Some roads you can safely go way well above 100. Some roads that have a 100 limit you can barely do 50.

If a road is not suitable or conditions are such that the maximum is not appropriate the law prescribes that a lower speed be used.

Correct. But the law does not prescribe *what* that speed should be. We drivers are expected to assess what that appropriate lower speed is. The ridiculousness lies in expecting drivers to figure out what the safe speed is only up to an arbitrary speed, but not beyond.

So you want more legislations and more prescribed speeds from the Police?

Jase2985

13513 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5942

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1460411 2-Jan-2016 22:03

frankv:
Jase2985:
frankv: When I had my bus driver's licence back in the 1990s, the limit for buses was 100kph. I don't believe it has changed since.

@frankv lol, so because it was true in the 90's means it still the case? i think you need to go have a read of the road code again, rules change all the time.

it changed in 2004
http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/1358

Thanks for that Jase... I haven't needed to worry about that for 15 years. Are you sure it hasn't changed back since 2004? Rules change all the time. lol

@frankv would you like me to link the official road code, which matches that police article?

scuwp

3900 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2471

#1460413 2-Jan-2016 22:10

sdav:
frankv:
sdav: They can only hammer home the same things they see in all their serious crashes. At the end of the day the speed determines the outcome.

This is falling for the simplistic sound-bite propaganda. At the end of the day, the speed AT IMPACT (*if* there is an impact) is what determines the outcome.

Well of course. How did what I say contradict that?

I was wondering that myself. Truth be told it is the transfer of kinetic energy that determines the outcome. Speed is just an easy way to rationalise the physics.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

sdav

846 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 193

#1460414 2-Jan-2016 22:15

frankv:
sdav: They can only hammer home the same things they see in all their serious crashes. At the end of the day the speed determines the outcome.

This is falling for the simplistic sound-bite propaganda. At the end of the day, the speed AT IMPACT (*if* there is an impact) is what determines the outcome.

I will never understand why we get so hung up on little numbers. Maybe the police will change there message again soon.

The problem is that the Police are hung up on numbers. 100kph good, 101kph bad. Safe driving is irrelevant. Actual dangerous driving (e.g. tailgating) is ignored.

It's not about the message. That's just superficial window-dressing. It's about the attitude behind the message.

Or is that the attitude you choose to apply? A police officer will never say taking a recommended 45km/h corner at 100km/h is good.

I cannot comprehend a roading network like NZ's combined with NZ's attitude to driving to then allow people to drive at the speed they felt was safe. I'm sure everyone that crashes felt they were safe 5 seconds prior to the accident, who wants to crash?

sdav

846 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 193

#1460416 2-Jan-2016 22:19

scuwp:
sdav:
frankv:
sdav: They can only hammer home the same things they see in all their serious crashes. At the end of the day the speed determines the outcome.

This is falling for the simplistic sound-bite propaganda. At the end of the day, the speed AT IMPACT (*if* there is an impact) is what determines the outcome.

Well of course. How did what I say contradict that?

I was wondering that myself. Truth be told it is the transfer of kinetic energy that determines the outcome. Speed is just an easy way to rationalise the physics.

All those non-impact crashes.

frankv

5690 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3649

Lifetime subscriber

#1460418 2-Jan-2016 22:21

MikeB4:
frankv:
Speed limits are the MAXIMUM speed you may travel. Drivers should drive to the conditions and travel at a slower speed when prudent. If you can't figure that out then please hand in your license.

But if it is prudent to travel at a higher speed, and you *can* figure that out, then why shouldn't you? Some arbitrary speed selected by Parliament does not make it safe.

Any vehicle over 3.5 tonnes has a reduced 90 km/h speed limit, including buses AFAIK

When I had my bus driver's licence back in the 1990s, the limit for buses was 100kph. I don't believe it has changed since.

Yet again the media have jumped on the very first thing following the bus crash and have made it the "cause". Case closed. The police will take several weeks to look at all the evidence. Rarely is there a single contributing factor, but let's not let a good story get on the way of a proper investigation

Agreed! I am a little surprised that the media hasn't decided the tourist driving the car was at fault.

The Law is 100kph maximum very simple, if you don't want to comply then don't drive.

Can we please not go round the "Respec' Ma Authoratah" simplification again. We've already established that it is NOT PRACTICAL (or in some cases even possible) to drive a car without breaking the law.

Applying this same kind of literal belief in the correctness of the law... the law actually says that anyone who exceeds 100kph must pay a fine. So, it is OK to exceed 100kph, so long as you pay the fine. But further, the law says that it must be proven that you exceeded to 100kph before you must pay the fine. So it's also OK to exceed 100kph so long as it can't be proven. In either case, you are complying with the law.

The law is an ass. It is a blunt weapon. Mindlessly complying with the law is, well, mindless. Mindlessly enforcing a law is ridiculous. This is nevertheless the course that law-makers think we should follow, because it is easy.

MikeB4

18464 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12124

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1460419 2-Jan-2016 22:25

frankv:
MikeB4:
frankv:
Speed limits are the MAXIMUM speed you may travel. Drivers should drive to the conditions and travel at a slower speed when prudent. If you can't figure that out then please hand in your license.

But if it is prudent to travel at a higher speed, and you *can* figure that out, then why shouldn't you? Some arbitrary speed selected by Parliament does not make it safe.

Any vehicle over 3.5 tonnes has a reduced 90 km/h speed limit, including buses AFAIK

When I had my bus driver's licence back in the 1990s, the limit for buses was 100kph. I don't believe it has changed since.

Yet again the media have jumped on the very first thing following the bus crash and have made it the "cause". Case closed. The police will take several weeks to look at all the evidence. Rarely is there a single contributing factor, but let's not let a good story get on the way of a proper investigation

Agreed! I am a little surprised that the media hasn't decided the tourist driving the car was at fault.

The Law is 100kph maximum very simple, if you don't want to comply then don't drive.

Can we please not go round the "Respec' Ma Authoratah" simplification again. We've already established that it is NOT PRACTICAL (or in some cases even possible) to drive a car without breaking the law.

Applying this same kind of literal belief in the correctness of the law... the law actually says that anyone who exceeds 100kph must pay a fine. So, it is OK to exceed 100kph, so long as you pay the fine. But further, the law says that it must be proven that you exceeded to 100kph before you must pay the fine. So it's also OK to exceed 100kph so long as it can't be proven. In either case, you are complying with the law.

The law is an ass. It is a blunt weapon. Mindlessly complying with the law is, well, mindless. Mindlessly enforcing a law is ridiculous. This is nevertheless the course that law-makers think we should follow, because it is easy.

If you don't agree with the law lobby Parliament to get it changed, that is the correct procedure.

frankv

5690 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3649

Lifetime subscriber

#1460420 2-Jan-2016 22:34

sdav:
frankv:
sdav: They can only hammer home the same things they see in all their serious crashes. At the end of the day the speed determines the outcome.

This is falling for the simplistic sound-bite propaganda. At the end of the day, the speed AT IMPACT (*if* there is an impact) is what determines the outcome.

Well of course. How did what I say contradict that?

My interpretation was that you were saying (as the police do) that the speed of the car determines the outcome. I apologise if I've mired that.

In fact, it is just one of the factors.

The serious crash unit does not investigate non-crashes. If a car is speeding but there is no crash, then it doesn't figure in the statistics as to what is 'safe' and what is 'not safe'. The removal of speed limits from American freeways shows that, where roads are well-engineered, a speed limit has *no* impact on safety.

sdav

846 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 193

#1460425 2-Jan-2016 22:53

frankv:
sdav:
frankv:
sdav: They can only hammer home the same things they see in all their serious crashes. At the end of the day the speed determines the outcome.

This is falling for the simplistic sound-bite propaganda. At the end of the day, the speed AT IMPACT (*if* there is an impact) is what determines the outcome.

Well of course. How did what I say contradict that?

My interpretation was that you were saying (as the police do) that the speed of the car determines the outcome. I apologise if I've mired that.

In fact, it is just one of the factors.

The serious crash unit does not investigate non-crashes. If a car is speeding but there is no crash, then it doesn't figure in the statistics as to what is 'safe' and what is 'not safe'. The removal of speed limits from American freeways shows that, where roads are well-engineered, a speed limit has *no* impact on safety.

I am saying the speed of the car determines the outcome.

As you alluded to, the serious crash unit only investigate certain crashes (fatal, severe injuries for example), regular police investigate most other crashes as the police are required to report all crash findings for analysis (the crashes reported to them anyway). Which leads to your final point and one that I agree with.

Well-engineered roads are important - but you can't place it on a pedestal all by itself. Road safety is a holistic approach and while engineers work with inanimate objects such as concrete/rubber/metal to improve road safety (with feedback and data collected by various agencies including police) the police have to deal with the unpredictable human side and all the problems that naturally brings.

Jase2985

13513 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5942

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1460426 2-Jan-2016 22:55

frankv:
The serious crash unit does not investigate non-crashes. If a car is speeding but there is no crash, then it doesn't figure in the statistics as to what is 'safe' and what is 'not safe'. The removal of speed limits from American freeways shows that, where roads are well-engineered, a speed limit has *no* impact on safety.

how many states have removed the speed limit?

australia removed all their unlimited speed limit areas so that the opsite of what you are preaching

there has to be a limit imposed somewhere to faciliate some form of safety on our roads. can/could i drive faster safely on our roads, yes, but sooner or later i would encouter the limit, what happens then? might have a s$&% my self moment or i might have an accident, i might kill those in my car or those in someone elses car. Should we let someone inexperianced in driving try to find those limits themselves or should we set them limits to follow and have penalities should they choose not to?

the road is not a race track so there needs to be limits.

dont like it, dont drive on them

MikeB4

18464 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12124

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1460462 3-Jan-2016 06:46

frankv:
sdav:
frankv:
sdav: They can only hammer home the same things they see in all their serious crashes. At the end of the day the speed determines the outcome.

This is falling for the simplistic sound-bite propaganda. At the end of the day, the speed AT IMPACT (*if* there is an impact) is what determines the outcome.

Well of course. How did what I say contradict that?

My interpretation was that you were saying (as the police do) that the speed of the car determines the outcome. I apologise if I've mired that.

In fact, it is just one of the factors.

The serious crash unit does not investigate non-crashes. If a car is speeding but there is no crash, then it doesn't figure in the statistics as to what is 'safe' and what is 'not safe'. The removal of speed limits from American freeways shows that, where roads are well-engineered, a speed limit has *no* impact on safety.

I maybe wrong but the limit on US Freeways is 65 to 70mph with a few at 80mph

1 | ... | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | ... | 24