This is the end ...

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › This is the end ...

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

6231 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1184641 28-Nov-2014 08:40

Time to upgrade the radar detector I think!

Rural IT and Broadband support.

Broadband troubleshooting and master filter installs.
Starlink installer - one month free: https://www.starlink.com/?referral=RC-32845-88860-71
Wi-Fi and networking
Cel-Fi supply and installer - boost your mobile phone coverage legally

Need help in Auckland, Waikato or BoP? Click my email button, or email me direct: [my user name] at geekzonemail dot com

xpd

Geek @ Coastguard NZ
13765 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1184647 28-Nov-2014 08:47

Just time to stick to the limit and if your speedo is out by a few K, hope the cop that stops you is understanding.

It is a bit crap tho... so many factors can come into play affecting your actual speed vs speedo reading.

Gavin / xpd / FastRaccoon / Geek of Coastguard New Zealand

LinkTree

fizzychicken

313 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1184649 28-Nov-2014 08:49

if we are talking about what we would do with rules....I'd rather see a minimum of third party fire and theft insurance become mandatory for all road drivers.

https://keybase.io/fizzychicken

kiwitrc

4123 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1184652 28-Nov-2014 08:50

This thread needs a soundtrack

DravidDavid

1907 posts

Uber Geek

#1184663 28-Nov-2014 09:05

coffeebaron: Time to upgrade the radar detector I think!

All the police are using the new digital laser guns. What about a laser jammer? I've seen cars on Trademe pre-fitted with them. Who sells them?

xpd

Geek @ Coastguard NZ
13765 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1184671 28-Nov-2014 09:14

Im all for banning jammers and detectors TBH.

They only help you break the law and avoid getting caught. If youre not doing anything wrong, then you dont need them. In saying that, in my younger days, I was bit of a speed demon - never got snapped once. No jammer/detector.

Gavin / xpd / FastRaccoon / Geek of Coastguard New Zealand

LinkTree

ckc

321 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1184674 28-Nov-2014 09:17

scuwp: Lord knows where everyone got this 10% tolerance from a WoF from??? The ONLY requirement to pass a WoF is that "The speedometer must be in good working order and operate while the vehicle is moving forward"

In reality that means the testing officer checks the needles moves when driving the vehicle forward for few meters over the pit or while doing the brake test

I agree with a previous poster...this has been picked up and blown all out of proportion by our sensationalist media

The police have always been able to stop you and issue tickets the moment you go over the posted speed limit (in some circumstances they can actually ticket you for driving too fast while under the legal limit)

Most don't worry about minor speed indiscretions provided it is not a safety risk (i.e crap weather, past a school etc)

LVV certification guidelines. 5% increase of the original circumference requires certification, and if it's found to be off then it can be off by no more than 10%.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

reven

3743 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1184697 28-Nov-2014 09:27

and you know they will be sitting with their cameras/radars at the bottom of hills....

scuwp

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#1184703 28-Nov-2014 09:36

ckc:
scuwp: Lord knows where everyone got this 10% tolerance from a WoF from??? The ONLY requirement to pass a WoF is that "The speedometer must be in good working order and operate while the vehicle is moving forward"

In reality that means the testing officer checks the needles moves when driving the vehicle forward for few meters over the pit or while doing the brake test

I agree with a previous poster...this has been picked up and blown all out of proportion by our sensationalist media

The police have always been able to stop you and issue tickets the moment you go over the posted speed limit (in some circumstances they can actually ticket you for driving too fast while under the legal limit)

Most don't worry about minor speed indiscretions provided it is not a safety risk (i.e crap weather, past a school etc)

LVV certification guidelines. 5% increase of the original circumference requires certification, and if it's found to be off then it can be off by no more than 10%.

Only for LVV certification - doesn't apply to 99% of the standard cars of the road once they pass initial entry criteria...but I agree if it is going to be policed so rigidly then perhaps there is a need to tighten up on the WoF requirements and maybe cars should need to pass a speedo calibration test. The flip side to speedo tolerance, is that the last time I looked the Police radar equipment was only accurate to +/- 2km/h anyway, another reason for some small tolerance.

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

ckc

321 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1184706 28-Nov-2014 09:39

I'm just driving at 80 everywhere for two months. Including in 50 zones, because they're never in 50 zones.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1184709 28-Nov-2014 09:45

networkn:
vexxxboy: on one hand you have the police saying that going 1km over the limit is dangerous and could kill you, and then the goverment saying that some roads should be 110 km as a safe speed and make traffic run smoothly, talk about contradictory messages .

Not that I agree with 1KM over the limit tolerance, but this isn't contradictory. If the Govt decides in consultation with the police that 110 is ok on some roads, the police are saying on those roads, 111 isn't safe and you will ticketed to help you stay within the limits.

The article doesnt say "you will ticketed to help you stay within the limits" It says you will be pulled over. Which may result in a fine or a warning.

A) It encourages drivers to drive at 50kph and not 54+
B) It should be met with common sense. "You are at 52kph, what speed were you driving at" "49" "Lets do a quick radar check to help you" And WOF should now include a speedometer test, so if my car says 54 instead of 50, thats 54 instead of 50 and 108 instead of 100. It all helps
C) If a driver is pulled over, and hello, this is the 3rd warning pullover, a fine.

I am sure this will play out over the next week or so, and we will get better details. The only issue as I see it is not a tolerance for a tolerance sake, its the radar vs the speedometer and how variances will be handled. An idea is to place active speed reading meters on the road, not many, just enough to ensure drivers have the opportunity to test themselves. Ive seen a couple in ChCh.

scuwp

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#1184724 28-Nov-2014 10:08

The other change that was talked about at some time was 'point to point' speed detection, a better way of wheedling out the consistent speedsters and not penalizing the odd momentary inattention or isolated passing maneuver.

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

shk292

2853 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1184732 28-Nov-2014 10:17

I'd rather they paid a bit more attention to traffic lights - I have seen three instances (not including cyclists, they are too numerous to count) of blatant red-light running in the last week and that is much more hazardous than driving a few kph over the limit.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1184737 28-Nov-2014 10:20

scuwp: The other change that was talked about at some time was 'point to point' speed detection, a better way of wheedling out the consistent speedsters and not penalizing the odd momentary inattention or isolated passing maneuver.

Good point. You don't want us over focussing on the speedo, but driving A to B at an average of 50 with the odd 51 or 52 is ok

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1184899 28-Nov-2014 14:05

tdgeek:
scuwp: The other change that was talked about at some time was 'point to point' speed detection, a better way of wheedling out the consistent speedsters and not penalizing the odd momentary inattention or isolated passing maneuver.

Good point. You don't want us over focussing on the speedo, but driving A to B at an average of 50 with the odd 51 or 52 is ok

Even on the open road with almost no other traffic, unless it's a stretch of very long straight road, then to average over 100km/h you're likely to be travelling very fast indeed at times.

In about 2000, LTSA published a very detailed report about inconsistencies with infringements and penalties. Included in this was an analysis / comparison of increased risk of driving at just over the legal alcohol limit (*but otherwise lawfully) and sober driving consistently at 10km/h over the speed limit, in which case the chance of being involved in a fatal or injury collision was found to be about the same.
The noted inconsistency was that the penalty for driving at 10 km/h over the limit was a small fine, only the possibility of losing your license for repeat offenses - compared with the severe penalties for being caught DIC.
The report was stating that speeding fines were nowhere near severe enough - and that while one behaviour was condemned as being completely socially unacceptable by most people, the other was generally tolerated - or even encouraged.

*not trying to diminish this, as the disinhibiting effect of alcohol makes it more likely the driver would ignore other road rules including speed limits - thus compounding the risk. It was also based on consistent speeding over a distance, where in reality people may speed for only short bursts, but an intoxicated person is drunk the whole way.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7