Speeding ticket for doing between 104-110km. Could you get off on a technicality?

Forums › Off topic › Speeding ticket for doing between 104-110km. Could you get off on a technicality?

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

2870 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#976124 28-Jan-2014 18:48

I get annoyed with people going on about revenue gathering, simple don't break the law its pretty simple really. The 104 thing is rubbish as well if you go over speed limit and get caught pay the money and stop abdicating responsibility to the Police being at fault.

Actually I'm glad people get fined for speeding as its revenue the rest of us tax payers don't need to come up with but take ownership of doing over the legal limit and the repercussions.

Seems society now is all about rights and not responsibilities hence some ludicrous statements on here.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#976135 28-Jan-2014 19:04

Abo: I wonder if they fill their quotas early this year they won't need to waste as much time revenue gathering and can spend more time doing actual police work (or catching the actual speeders on the road)

I don't agree that having a lowered tolerance has any affect on crashes - it implys that the majority of the crashes happen between 104 and 110 which I highly doubt is true.

If the police could actually provide actual evidence that a lowered tolerance directly influenced the number of crashes I would reconsider however I don't expect that to ever being proven.

They should fix the **** NZ roads first and it will fix most of the problems.

Reduced speed logically will lower certain crashes, however more importantly lower speed means lower energy in crashes. There is saying bigger speed the bigger the mess and that is true.

At higher speeds your ability to avoid other peoples mistakes becomes increasingly difficult.

andrewNZ

2487 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#976140 28-Jan-2014 19:12

Abo: I wonder if they fill their quotas early this year they won't need to waste as much time revenue gathering and can spend more time doing actual police work (or catching the actual speeders on the road)

I don't agree that having a lowered tolerance has any affect on crashes - it implys that the majority of the crashes happen between 104 and 110 which I highly doubt is true.

If the police could actually provide actual evidence that a lowered tolerance directly influenced the number of crashes I would reconsider however I don't expect that to ever being proven.

No one's suggesting driving 106 is going to significantly increase the chance of crashing, it might not be you that screws it up. It's about what happens when things do go wrong.

The main factor is stopping distance. The additional distance to stop at 110 vs 100 appears to be around 14m. Although it might be impossible to avoid a crash at either speed, the speed at the time of impact can still be significantly different.

My rough guessing calculations say. (I don't pretend these values are accurate, but I believe they'd be somewhat representative of the final figure variance)

With 50M to stop
- 100 km/h impact speed = 60km/h
- 110 km/h impact speed = 75km/h

Abo: They should fix the **** NZ roads first and it will fix most of the problems.

This is a pretty dangerous attitude, and it absolutely wouldn't fix most of the problems. All it'd do is make people feel more strongly that the speed limit is the safe speed to drive on that stretch of road. It's a limit, not a recommendation.

You are required to drive to the conditions, whatever they'd be

As much as I'd hate it, I don't think there should be a tolerance, all it does is move the line in he sand.

101 is speeding.

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#976144 28-Jan-2014 19:16

andrewNZ:
Abo: I wonder if they fill their quotas early this year they won't need to waste as much time revenue gathering and can spend more time doing actual police work (or catching the actual speeders on the road)

I don't agree that having a lowered tolerance has any affect on crashes - it implys that the majority of the crashes happen between 104 and 110 which I highly doubt is true.

If the police could actually provide actual evidence that a lowered tolerance directly influenced the number of crashes I would reconsider however I don't expect that to ever being proven.

No one's suggesting driving 106 is going to significantly increase the chance of crashing, it might not be you that screws it up. It's about what happens when things do go wrong.

The main factor is stopping distance. The additional distance to stop at 110 vs 100 appears to be around 14m. Although it might be impossible to avoid a crash at either speed, the speed at the time of impact can still be significantly different.

My rough guessing calculations say. (I don't pretend these values are accurate, but I believe they'd be somewhat representative of the final figure variance)

With 50M to stop
- 100 km/h impact speed = 60km/h
- 110 km/h impact speed = 75km/h

Abo: They should fix the **** NZ roads first and it will fix most of the problems.

This is a pretty dangerous attitude, and it absolutely wouldn't fix most of the problems. All it'd do is make people feel more strongly that the speed limit is the safe speed to drive on that stretch of road. It's a limit, not a recommendation.

You are required to drive to the conditions, whatever they'd be

As much as I'd hate it, I don't think there should be a tolerance, all it does is move the line in he sand.

101 is speeding.

I agree the tolerance is now the new limit which it isn't the limit is 100kph so some just want to get away with going faster than limit then cry baby and blame everything else on why they got caught.

Its not revenue gathering that caught them it was the speed being done.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#976145 28-Jan-2014 19:19

Abo: I wonder if they fill their quotas early this year they won't need to waste as much time revenue gathering and can spend more time doing actual police work (or catching the actual speeders on the road)

There are no quotas - police are free to issue as many tickets as they like.

andrewNZ

2487 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#976151 28-Jan-2014 19:23

I got one of these tickets too, and it pee'd me off because I clearly wasn't paying enough attention.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#976156 28-Jan-2014 19:28

If your has cruise control fitted use it and staying within the legal maximums is easy.

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.

Bung

6477 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#976169 28-Jan-2014 19:41

If you have cruise control and it is dead flat sticking to a limit is easy but as soon as you move off the flat your cruise control's ability to stick to a constant speed will be knocking on the Police's tolerance.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#976173 28-Jan-2014 19:43

Bung: If you have cruise control and it is dead flat sticking to a limit is easy but as soon as you move off the flat your cruise control's ability to stick to a constant speed will be knocking on the Police's tolerance.

I have never had a problem with it

RunningMan

8953 posts

Uber Geek

#976174 28-Jan-2014 19:45

Bung: If you have cruise control and it is dead flat sticking to a limit is easy but as soon as you move off the flat your cruise control's ability to stick to a constant speed will be knocking on the Police's tolerance.

Only if you have it set right on the limit.

andrewNZ

2487 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#976175 28-Jan-2014 19:46

Bung: If you have cruise control and it is dead flat sticking to a limit is easy but as soon as you move off the flat your cruise control's ability to stick to a constant speed will be knocking on the Police's tolerance.

If you have shart cruse control like my 2008 Mazda then yes (but the, shart speedo accuracy negates that somewhat...) If you have good cruse control like my Hilux, the needle barely moves, and never above the set speed.

Bung

6477 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#976189 28-Jan-2014 20:03

andrewNZ: If you have good cruse control like my Hilux, the needle barely moves, and never above the set speed.

So on an undulating road how does your Hilux behave at the top of each rise? Any set speed up a rise will usually increase momentarily at the crest until the cruise control cuts the throttle. On manual control you'd anticipate and back off before the top but the Hilux has no idea where the top of the hill is until it gets there.Surely it doesn't brake?

andrewNZ

2487 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#976203 28-Jan-2014 20:18

There is 1 particular knob on my daily trip that does cause this slightly under certain conditions, and only because it kicks down immediately before the crest. The rest of that undulating stretch, and all hills on my trip are fine (you can't blame cruse control for picking up speed downhill).
I'm comparing this to a car that waits for an age, and then gives it to it with a total variance of 10-15kmh (5-10 below, 5 above).

Either way, our job as drivers is to manage the car in all respects. These things are foreseeable, and if this is an issue, you need to reduce the speed you set the cruse control at. You can't blame the car, it's your responsibility.

Acrux

56 posts

Master Geek

#976219 28-Jan-2014 20:38

It really annoys me that the police are pitching the ' it's dangerous to travel at over 100km/h' bandwagon. Years ago we had a 80km/h limit imposed to try to deal with fuel restrictions, was there a massive reduction in fatal crashes during that time? NO! Then they were pushing it's dangerous to travel at over 80km/h message.

They say in NZ that in 30% of fatalities speed was a contributing factor, meaning other things happened as well, which we will gloss over. Then 30% are alcohol related, we get a fair few TV ads about that topic.

So where are the major campains on the other 40%?? Every day I get caught behind drivers on motorway onramps doing 60km/h or slower with traffic having to break heavily to avoid us, people pushing from lane to lane to get a few cars ahead, going 100km/h through roadworks on motorways, still texting and talking on cellphones, ploughing through red lights and generaly being a*^*holes. Where are the campains to get idiot drivers with no idea how to drive a vehicle off the road. The 4km/h over the limit or the world will end approach is a joke. It simply takes the moral high ground and anyone who disagrees is obviously deluded. It is yet another dumb wrap us all in cotton wool approach.

Having said that the new drivers licensing tests for restricted and full licenses are amazing having recently helped a younger person gain their restricted license. You now actually have to know how to drive properly to pass them. The one hour restricted test for example, really does test their driving ability and knowledge of the road rules hard. If everyone who got a ticket for being an idiot (not sure it that it a bookable offense?) who had not sat their test with the newer much more stringent testing had to sit their license again we very quickly would have a nation who knew how to drive.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#976231 28-Jan-2014 20:55

Acrux: It really annoys me that the police are pitching the ' it's dangerous to travel at over 100km/h' bandwagon. Years ago we had a 80km/h limit imposed to try to deal with fuel restrictions, was there a massive reduction in fatal crashes during that time? NO! Then they were pushing it's dangerous to travel at over 80km/h message.

They say in NZ that in 30% of fatalities speed was a contributing factor, meaning other things happened as well, which we will gloss over. Then 30% are alcohol related, we get a fair few TV ads about that topic.

So where are the major campains on the other 40%?? Every day I get caught behind drivers on motorway onramps doing 60km/h or slower with traffic having to break heavily to avoid us, people pushing from lane to lane to get a few cars ahead, going 100km/h through roadworks on motorways, still texting and talking on cellphones, ploughing through red lights and generaly being a*^*holes. Where are the campains to get idiot drivers with no idea how to drive a vehicle off the road. The 4km/h over the limit or the world will end approach is a joke. It simply takes the moral high ground and anyone who disagrees is obviously deluded. It is yet another dumb wrap us all in cotton wool approach.

Having said that the new drivers licensing tests for restricted and full licenses are amazing having recently helped a younger person gain their restricted license. You now actually have to know how to drive properly to pass them. The one hour restricted test for example, really does test their driving ability and knowledge of the road rules hard. If everyone who got a ticket for being an idiot (not sure it that it a bookable offense?) who had not sat their test with the newer much more stringent testing had to sit their license again we very quickly would have a nation who knew how to drive.

I don't have the figures but I can remember a jump in fatalities after the maximum was raised to 100. As for campaigns for the other causes, well remember "only a fool breaks the 2 second rule", there are signs on most country roads regarding taking breaks from driving. The intersection campaigns. The traffic light cameras and the drive social...... And so on.

I do believe that there should be a campaign along the lines of 'if you are driving grow up and drive responsibly what you are doing is not a game'

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