Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25
6912 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2197

Subscriber

  Reply # 1460399 2-Jan-2016 21:51
Send private message

frankv:
Jase2985:
joker97:
The police 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.


thats why there are speed advisory signs on those roads/corners


If speed *advisory* signs are what make it safe, why do we need speed limits?


and given its was a bus it has a speed limit of 90kph not 100kph like you are implying in your post which means under the lower speed limit it shouldnt have been doing more than 94kph


Bus speed limits are the same as cars... trucks have lower limits, but buses don't.



@frankv got a link to the bus thing, as the road code says any vehicle over 3500kgs gross laden weight has a max speed of 90kph, so pretty much anything over a 21 seater would fall into that when empty.

Speed advisorys dont make it safe they tell to how fast to drive to make it safe. you choose weather or not you want to follow that. its better than havig the speed limit change for each corner.

2027 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 969


  Reply # 1460400 2-Jan-2016 21:51
Send private message

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.



 
 
 
 


6912 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2197

Subscriber

  Reply # 1460405 2-Jan-2016 21:55
Send private message

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

2027 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 969


  Reply # 1460406 2-Jan-2016 21:56
Send private message

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.


700 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 143


  Reply # 1460408 2-Jan-2016 21:59
Send private message

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?

2027 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 969


  Reply # 1460409 2-Jan-2016 21:59
Send private message

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


Onward
11256 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4994

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1460410 2-Jan-2016 21:59
Send private message

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?




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


6912 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2197

Subscriber

  Reply # 1460411 2-Jan-2016 22:03
Send private message

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?

2739 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1159


  Reply # 1460413 2-Jan-2016 22:10
Send private message

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.




Always be yourself, unless you can be Batman, then always be the Batman



700 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 143


  Reply # 1460414 2-Jan-2016 22:15
One person supports this post
Send private message

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?

700 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 143


  Reply # 1460416 2-Jan-2016 22:19
Send private message

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.

2027 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 969


  Reply # 1460418 2-Jan-2016 22:21
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.



Onward
11256 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4994

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1460419 2-Jan-2016 22:25
Send private message

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.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


2027 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 969


  Reply # 1460420 2-Jan-2016 22:34
Send private message

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.



700 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 143


  Reply # 1460425 2-Jan-2016 22:53
Send private message

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.

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Vodafone TV — television in the cloud
Posted 17-Oct-2017 19:29


Nokia 8 review: Classy midrange pure Android phone
Posted 16-Oct-2017 07:27


Why carriers might want to embrace Commerce Commission study, MVNOs
Posted 13-Oct-2017 09:42


Fitbit launches Ionic, its health and fitness smartwatch
Posted 12-Oct-2017 15:52


Xero launches machine learning automation to improve coding accuracy for small businesses
Posted 12-Oct-2017 15:45


Bank of New Zealand uses Intel AI to detect financial crime
Posted 12-Oct-2017 15:39


Sony launches Xperia XZ1, a smartphone with real-time 3D capture
Posted 11-Oct-2017 10:26


Notes on Nokia’s phone comeback
Posted 10-Oct-2017 10:06


Air New Zealand begins Inflight Wi-Fi rollout
Posted 9-Oct-2017 20:16


The latest mobile phones in perspective
Posted 9-Oct-2017 18:34


Review: Acronis True Image 2018 — serious backup
Posted 8-Oct-2017 11:22


Lenovo launches ThinkPad Anniversary Edition 25
Posted 7-Oct-2017 23:16


Less fone, more tech as Vodafone gets brand make-over
Posted 6-Oct-2017 08:16


API Talent Achieves AWS MSP Partner Status
Posted 5-Oct-2017 21:20


Stellar Consulting Group now a Domo Partner
Posted 5-Oct-2017 21:03



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.