fully agree, there is always a root cause to a road smash.
Calling them 'accidents' almost excuses the drivers from any responsibility. I would love to see the real reason highlighted.
Speed, inattention, tiredness, cellphone, stupidity, impairmant by drug/alcohol etc.
I'm picking stupidity would come out near top.
thejazzpianoma,
Sep 6, 12:10pm
You need to brush up on your understanding of English I think. Here is the google definition of "accident".
1. An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
2. A crash involving road or other vehicles, typically one that causes serious damage or injury.
Bottom line, every accident (road or otherwise) has a cause, its the nature of physics. The vast majority of road crashes are accidents, very few would be intentional's and those are usually correctly defined as autocide, willful damage etc. In the end it just comes down to whether the driver intended to crash or not.
I think you may be getting a bit confused with the recent Police attitude changes with regard to the term "accidents". They don't like the use of the word for purely legal reasons, it doesn't sound good their case when they are charging a driver for dangerous driving after an "accident" even though it may be the correct use of English.
thejazzpianoma,
Sep 6, 12:27pm
Actually, if you drive within the law its simply impossible to "let everyone got at passing lanes" if you are doing 90. I did the math on this a couple of years ago and posted it here. Some passing lanes are so short only one car could passwhile staying completely within the bounds of the law.
The other issue is as I have already explained in this thread. I keep left exactly as you describe when towing or driving my camper van, but since road Policing has become absurd I am now seeing a high proportion of drivers put myself and others in unnecessary danger when I do so.
We are not talking about intentional speeders causing the danger here. Its all about people being too scared to exceed (or even go near) 100 while passing and becoming a road hazard.
Why is it so hard to understand that Policing to the point of absurdity achieves nothing, except to create a revenue stream!
If other laws were Policed like we do our roads people would be fined for stealing council property if they walked across a park and left with lawn clippings on their shoes.
Its sad that people can't see that they are being psychologically and socially manipulated into a mindset that makes them think its a sin speak out against policing laws to their literal description instead of their workable intention. Call me a tin foil hat wearer but I say its an intentional and conscious decision of the Police and other government bodies to do this as its the only way they can justify the infringements required to maintain the revenue flow.
Saying that, I don't think its some sort of evil plot, its more a case of being under pressure to maintain the near 100M a year status quo and having a "whats the harm" attitude to a bit of truth manipulation.
elect70,
Sep 6, 12:33pm
Cameras are cheaper than a patrol car& cop, greater return on investment= cash cow .
johnf_456,
Sep 6, 12:45pm
You are missing the point which is be considerate to other users or slow down at passing lanes to allow built up traffic to pass. You are not always going to be able to do a 100 all the time.
There is no revenue to be made by not driving at 120 then wondering why you got a ticket.
nightsky1,
Sep 6, 2:16pm
If you can't afford the speeding fines then you can't afford to speed. If you get pinged then it's cause you broke the law.
. hardly rocket science.
more speed cameras the better.speeders pay and pay. and I have no problem with that.
therafter1,
Sep 6, 2:18pm
Well illlllllllllllllllllll be dawged, heres one of them right here !
thejazzpianoma,
Sep 6, 2:20pm
No no no no no. You still don't get it. We are NOT talking about people driving along at 120 and getting a ticket. You keep trying to sneak that in there to fit your agenda.
We are talking about people who get pinged for as little as 1km/h over the limit. This is the real issue and one that you seem to want to go to extraordinary lengths to throw people off the path of.
thejazzpianoma,
Sep 6, 2:22pm
Actually, it is a lot more complicated than your grasp of the situation and actually is right up there with rocket science.
Your analysis is ignorant of the physical, psychological and biological realities of the situation.
At the risk of sounding rude you are the prime example of the non-thinking compliant masses the Government likes to manipulate to create social pressure supporting its agenda's. Always falling over yourself to follow an easy black and white slogan over the pain of having to think your way through a complicated issue.
Not entirely your fault though, between the coping mechanisms your brain employ's to deal with a complicated world, the social pressures and the constant psychologically engineered government propaganda, its an easy trap to fall in.
sifty,
Sep 6, 2:29pm
I do.
As I stated earlier, cameras only operate after the fact. They do not stop someone speeding, merely send them a bill for doing so a week later.
Now real traffic cops, in cars cruising and doing their job would be far more effective in reducing traffic smashes. In addition to policing the speed limit, they can crack down on the atrocious use of indicators (esp at roundabouts) and also lane hoggers, slow drivers, inconsiderate drivers, drunks and unsafe loads etc etc.
Isn't that better than having a camera taking snaps!
therafter1,
Sep 6, 2:38pm
Well illlllllllllllllllllll be dawged, heres another one of them right here !
realtrader1,
Sep 6, 3:20pm
If you look at the original post you will see one of the key things that the poster says:
"On a back road where traffic is light and visibility is good, I don't have safety concerns about exceeding the limit by 10-20km/h"
So, are you suggesting that people should be allowed to make up their own minds as to what they perceive to be safe for them!
Regardless, there is a law.It's one size fits all!
It's the same law you agreed to when you you rolled up to get your licence.Surely you didn't write down 10km to 20km over the limit is okay, so long as you think it's safe.You would have never got your licence if you had that mentality.So, what's changed!Now you have your licence, I presume you do, does that allow you to drive as you will, or to keep the law as you said you would by taking up a licence in the first place!Three leading reasons why there is so much carnage is because 1.People are willing to risk too much.2.The judicial system is so very weak.3.Access to easy public health.Compulsory health insurance would assist individuals to think differently and along with that beef up the judicial system.Radical changes are needed!
thejazzpianoma,
Sep 6, 3:31pm
The OP may have said 10 - 20km over the limit as their personal view 2 pages ago. However that does not change the reality which is people are getting ticketed for just 1km/h over the limit. This is what I have been covering in my posts more recently.
That's the thing, people like you are getting suckered into confusing real and intentional speeding with unintentional borderline infringements.
That's the game, they have to confuse the two in order to justify 1km/h over the limit fines without upsetting the public at large.
Since there is no arguing with you over the varied and technical reasons why everyone speeds unintentionally from time to time, which clearly you don't grasp, here is a simple question for you.
How do you feel about the Government/Police publicly and knowingly lying to you in the media!
Do you think its fair that they say the limit is 4km/h when it is really only 1km/h!
ree6,
Sep 6, 3:47pm
No-one, anywhere in this country, has ever been ticketed for 1kmh over the limit; if you can show undisputed proof on here (photo of genuine ticket) I will shut up and let you continue with your anti road police diatribe, unmolested by me. Seriously, anyone who doesn't have the mental and physical co-ordination to maintain the speed of the vehicle they are driving, at or slightly underthe speed limit, should really think about whether or not they should be driving a car.
realtrader1,
Sep 6, 3:53pm
Hi Jazz, it's not that the OP may have said 10 - 20 km over the limit.but DID say this, there is a difference and I am not being pedantic.Being ticketed for driving at 1km over the limit is not the issue I was addressing, Jaz, as you know.I am not confusing any issues Jaz, or are you suggesting that there can only be one issue to look at!Fairness is a two way street.
You say "Since there is no arguing with you over the varied and technical reasons why everyone speeds unintentionally from time to time, which clearly you don't grasp, here is a simple question for you."
I don't have to comment on your posts necessarily Jaz.But you have no need to be insulting though.Lighten up a bit!I have made one comment about one aspect of the original post.You make some wild assumptions that are probably not worth addressing.It might be profitable though for you to take a breather and reread what you have written.Have a good day:)
thejazzpianoma,
Sep 6, 3:56pm
What you are doing is akin to asking for photographic evidence that a fart can make a noise. In other words, not only is it obvious, you are asking for the wrong kind of evidence because you don't understand the argument.
I will explain it yet again super simply, so there is as little chance of confusion as possible.
1. Police Radar is only accurate to +/- 3km/h.
2. On long weekends they have been known to advertise a tolerance of 4km/h. (yes it is worded sometimes to mean you will get a ticket at 4km/h over)
3. If you are capable of the simplest of math you should be able to conclude that at least some people are getting tickets for 1km/h over the limit.
If you want further proof do your own research. I am not your Mother and there is plenty of information regarding the radar accuracy etc out there.
smac,
Sep 6, 3:59pm
So Jazz, 1kph over the limit is OK! What about 3kph! Hold, what's a limit again!
As I said before, I think the current speed policy is crap, HOWEVER, I do fully support the use of a limit, otherwise it's personal judgement, and the road toll tells us that a certain % of the population have crap judgement.
You can say what you like about how the limit is policed, but as soon as you go down the road of "a little bit is ok" you'll end up contradicting yourself or otherwise turning yourself in knots trying to justify it (to yourself).
smac,
Sep 6, 4:01pm
I'll spell it out: you are saying that because of electronic equipment tolerances a higher 'no ticket' limit should apply, yes!
Lets say they go for a 10kph 'limit' (over the limit). Well guess what, because of that tolerance, somebody is gonna get a ticket for doing 107. Is that also 'unfair'! The argument/position just doesn't hold water, give it up.
thejazzpianoma,
Sep 6, 4:06pm
Sigh, another one that fails to understand the point. Here is what I am saying reeeeaaaallllllyyyyy simply for you.
WE ARE BEING LIED TO
The Government comes on the radio/t.v and says there is a tolerance of 4km/h. This is simply untrue. The real tolerance is less than 1km/h.
If a private company tried a trick like this on T.V they could and would be done under the fair trading act. The Government of course is exempt from that act.
What is a fair tolerance is a separate issue which I am also arguing. Don't confuse the two.
gedo1,
Sep 6, 4:08pm
I must be easily amused because among other things in this thread I have chuckled most at the comments that say; in essence; "they were hiding because you didn't see them until the last minute"Think about that. You didn't SEE them until the last minute.so you did see them. ergo. they were not hidden.Then another one. "they should be plainly marked and visible".Does this mean you need to know of the presence of a speed camera to travel at or below the posted speed limit! I hear that the Police, in using speed cameras are revenue gathering.Yes, they are. from the revenue providers (of which I have been one from time to time). If I wanted to open a business I wouldn't do it unless I knew there was a viable revenue stream - I am not a charity after all.If I travel in my vehicle on any road in New Zealand or overseas for that matter I know there will be certain laid down speed limits and I know that I am expected to stay below those.It's been like that since beforegot my driver license (too many years ago!) and it hasn't changed. Well, maybe some of the speeds posted have changed. I know that in NZ at least there are speed signs indicating the effective speed limit so I tend to use those rather than the presence or other wise of a speed cameras to tell me when i may be breaking the local law.It seems simple and I guess I must be simple enough to understand that if I get caught then it may cost me
thejazzpianoma,
Sep 6, 4:12pm
Its called fair and reasonable Policing. Its been used successfully for decades across the world. What's new is trying to Police to the hairsplitting limit of the law at the expense of the intention of the law. They are also lying and being intentionally misleading in their methods.
As I mentioned in this or another thread.
What they are doing is akin to your walking across a council park then being charged for theft because there are lawn clippings on your shoes.
stevo2,
Sep 6, 4:14pm
Well I saw it all tonight on my way home from work. Just north of TePuna there is a passing Lane in a 90kph area. At the very end of this passing lane was Mr Plod sitting in his car holding a Laser gun out the window. Bastards
gedo1,
Sep 6, 4:15pm
Jazz yer a good earnest bloke and certainly you hold strong views that you are not afraid to express.But others have other views and they are entitled to those and to hold them without expecting to be belittled for doing so.To be insulted when you state simply that adherence to the existing law will avoid penalty is hardly satisfactory - because it is true.You can't argue with that logic really.The law is open to change and while it seems justice and the application of it takes so long to alter,it is possible for change to occur.It won't happen by posting and whinging in here.It won't happen unless there is activity in the right quarters for change to occur.I know Jazz agitates for that and for others to action their thoughts and I support him for that at least.Open minds people and respect each other.Sermon complete for now!
thejazzpianoma,
Sep 6, 4:16pm
That's the whole point, its intentionally designed to seem "simple" yet the real issue is complex that's how they get to give out unfair tickets en mass without the general public realising they are unfair. They play a very well orchestrated psychological media game designed to get public support for noble sounding idea which they intend to exploit on technical grounds that few understand.
If you can't see the danger in having a speed camera placed in the middle of a passing lane, during a 1km/h tolerance period, set up to be obscured until the last second or two then I can't help you.
(BTW, this is what happens on the only passing lane in about 40km near where I live)
EDIT (after reading the above) If my posts sound personally insulting to anyone, its not my intention and I apologise for any offense. I do appreciate they can be pretty direct/harsh.
gedo1,
Sep 6, 4:22pm
.and from your fleeting capture of that image you assumed that officer was trying to "catch" speeder (i.e. those who were exceeding the speed limit!Did it occur to you that this was a live activity in which that officer was checking for those who had been travelling slowly and who sped up when they reached the passing lane thus causing problems for those who wished to overtake them!That is actually part of their role and they DO use the laser "guns" for that purpose.How do I know that!I have had to act for at least 2 persons who were hit in that manner - i.e they had sped up as described and got caught in that manner.
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.