About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

January 1, 2015 3:00pm by David Farrar

Priorities

Like this:

Like Loading...

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment140

Uncategorized
Blunt
cartoons

Comments (140)

Login to comment or vote

Redbaiter

Very good.

Police management are a bunch of politically correct self serving bureaucratic robots and need to be thrown out en masse.

Fat chance of that with Michael Woodhouse as Minister.

Read the BS about “speeding” in this press release.

http://beehive.govt.nz/release/ministers-launch-summer-road-safety-campaign
23 4
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 3:02pm
David Garrett

Happy New Year to you Red…I agree with about 90% of that comment…

ANd the graphic is slightly inaccurate…there’s a 10% chance the cops will even turn up to investigate your burglary, much less recover the stolen property…
32 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 3:05pm
kowtow

I’ll repost this.

http://www.dogandlemon.com/media/ticketing-mums-and-dads-won-t-lower-road-toll-say-experts

A 2009 AA study of 300 fatal crashes found:

“It is apparent that [many speed-based road fatalities] were caused by people who don’t care about any kind of rules. These are men who speed, drink, don’t wear safety belts, have no valid license or WoF – who are basically renegades. They usually end up wrapped around a tree, but they can also overtake across a yellow line and take out other motorists as well.” and

“However much the government tries to massage the figures, the reality is that about 80% of fatalities occur at speeds below the legal limit. Of the 20% of fatal accidents that occur over the speed limit, most involve either motorcyclists, or working-class males on the edge of the criminal community who are often blotto or tired or both. The government’s own studies show this.”
27 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 3:15pm
Redbaiter

Happy New Year to you too Dave (and everyone else).

Do you ever think about how often you say “I don’t often agree with Redbaiter but”?

In view of Kowtow’s comment above, its worth recording Woodhouse’s lame pronouncements here-

“There are still too many crashes or deaths on our roads that could have easily been avoided by people taking their time and driving within the speed limit.

“This Government takes road safety extremely seriously and Police will be out in force again this summer so speeding and drink drivers should beware.”

Bill English must have told him about how bad the deficit is looking.
16 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 3:25pm
Manolo

The Police has forgotten that it’s duty is to serve the public. Its appetite for revenue collection is driving it to new lows.
20 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 3:37pm
itstricky

Cracks me up. Random KB ranters like Manolo who normally preach “personal responsibility” suddenly decide it’s the cop’s fault they were doing 101kph.
8 24
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 3:59pm
David Garrett

Manolo: When this new drink driving limit hits home – as it will over the summer – I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a bit of an outcry. I have blown 265 (some months before the limit reduced from 400 to 250) and there was no way I was in any way “unsafe” to drive.

But we have to remember it is the politicians who have passed this, and not the police. But I thoroughly identify with the graphic regarding the condescending lectures…particularly about “unsafe speeds” on dry straight roads on a hot summers day…funny how it’s always particularly “unsafe” on the gentle downslopes where they like to set the traps…

And as Rodney Hide pointed out the other day, it is now impossible to pass someone doing 90kph safely while also staying under 100…Surely there has to be a public backlash sometime soon…
20 3
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 4:02pm
ross411

But speeding and burglary are unrelated? Self-serving nonsense.

This seems to be the new thing, link two tangentially related aspects, and claim that the magnitude of one directly relates to that of the second. Then claim moral victory, and dismiss the one you don’t favour as pointless because of the magnitude of the one you do favour.

The question that needs to be asked, is whether the speeding enforcement happening has any bearing on burglary whatsoever. When it’s happening, is its funding taken from burglary-related staffing? If it is stopped, does its funding go to burglary-related staffing? Completely unlikely on either count.

Yes, yes, the new speeding enforcement is completely useless, and prevents effective passing. Disliking it doesn’t validate this kind of nonsense.
9 12
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 4:08pm
Scott

Well I would like a bit more leeway on the new speeding limits and less police giving out tickets to motorists and more police resources devoted to burglary solving! Agree totally with the above.
11 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 4:13pm
MT_Tinman

David Garrett (7,722 comments) says:
January 1st, 2015 at 4:02 pm

And as Rodney Hide pointed out the other day, it is now impossible to pass someone doing 90kph safely while also staying under 100…Surely there has to be a public backlash sometime soon…

Perhaps it should be started by some bright lawyer pursuing a manslaughter charge against police traffic (mis)management heads for getting their charges to hassle perfectly safe motoring practices instead of concentrating on the appalling, dangerous and inconsiderate practices of a few seen polluting the roads daily.
7 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 4:17pm
Redbaiter

This seems to be the new thing, link two tangentially related aspects, and claim that the magnitude of one directly relates to that of the second. Then claim moral victory, and dismiss the one you don’t favour as pointless because of the magnitude of the one you do favour.

What garbage.

The point is the Police, led by Minister Woodhouse are focused on something they think is important, whereas the public seems to think differently.

For years NZ’s law abiding citizenry has been crying out for action on burglary yet these cries fall on deaf ears.

Woodhouse and his knee jerk Police Management drop kicks are a bunch of arrogant bureaucrats who are telling people what they need rather than listening to what the people are telling them they need.

The issue is to cut the $1 billion dollars plus that is spent largely on enforcing speed limits and divert that money and the staff it pays for to real crime prevention. There is nothing to stop this being done other than the arrogance of Woodhouse and his Police Managers, and there is nothing damn wrong with people asking for this.
23 4
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 4:19pm
Redbaiter

Cracks me up. Random KB ranters like Manolo who normally preach “personal responsibility” suddenly decide it’s the cop’s fault they were doing 101kph.

Doesn’t crack me up. It can’t be proved anyone is /was doing 101kph and nor can any driver know what speed he is doing to an accuracy of 1kph.

Its tyranny, and its not only sad, its also sick that NZ is so full of people like istricky who approve of it and support it. They should be living in Cuba.
22 4
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 4:27pm
V

Remember the old National Party ad that made fun of the Police hiding in bushes with a radar gun as part of Michael Cullens ‘revenue gathering team’.
Even Helen wouldn’t have advocated for a 1kph tolerance.
Won’t be long before cars are mandated to self-report their speed back to HQ with tickets auto-issued.
That’s if we don’t get self-driving cars first.
15 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 4:37pm
srylands

No it doesn’t crack me up either. If ever I get a ticket for doing 101 km/h I will be taking it to Court. If I was convicted I would leave the country permanently.
13 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 4:38pm
mikenmild

Don’t let the door slam on your way out of the country, then.
3 25
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 4:45pm
srylands

“Won’t be long before cars are mandated to self-report their speed back to HQ with tickets auto-issued.”

It is closer than people think.

A bunch of insurers are installing equipment in cars to record driver behaviour to assess risk, and so set premiums. These devices record speed, acceleration, g forces, traction, etc. This Ohio company is an example:

http://www.progressive.com/auto/snapshot/

Next step is that they are used for ticketing and enforcement. It will start off being directed at groups of “high risk” drivers. Then it will proliferate.
13 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 4:45pm
srylands

“Don’t let the door slam on your way out of the country, then.”

People like you, who cheer for tyrannical states, start off with smarmy remarks like that. Until the exodus grows, and the capital flees.

Even those that stay will become supremely cynical towards the police, which is damaging for society. How can’t you see that?
19 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 4:50pm
mikenmild

Coz I’m not paranoid.
3 17
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 4:56pm
David Garrett

Ross411: You are obviously not a very bright chap, but as it’s the season of goodwill to all men – even to the thick, and those who will not see – I’ll try and explain why investigating burglary and cops manning speed cameras are related. Try and stay with me, but feel free to ask questions…

There are a finite number of cops in the country…about 7000 of them I believe. Combined with the police budget (having cops working at 3 am on a Sunday will be more expensive than 10.30 am on a Tuesday) that means there are also a finite number of man(sorry person)/hours available for frontline policing…that’s cops out on the street fulfilling their core functions of preventing and solving crimes…both traffic and “real”, i.e where someone is bashed, raped, or their house is emptied. With me so far? Excellent!

Now, the more person hours you devote to having a trained cop with the radar gun on the downsloping section of motorway near your house/place of work, the FEWER person/hours can be used visting and assisting poor Miss Fatialofa in Otara who had her house cleaned out while she was at church (the poor being disproportionately the victims of crime, both violent and otherwise). Still with me?

I once had Howard Broad – in the Law and Order Select Committee – admit that: 1) manning a radar gun was a job that didn’t require a properly trained cop; and 2) back in the day when we had traffic cops and real cops, we had the lesser breed doing the first job; and 3) that it might be a better use of police time to have some poorly paid cyphers on the radar guns while the real cops investigated real crime. He was so shaken he had to issue a press release the next day “clarifying” that he wasn’t advocating a return to pretend cops – to man the radar guns – and real cops to investigate crime. (Mr Google will help you if you don’t believe me)

Now, what part of all that didn’t you follow?
15 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 5:19pm
itstricky

Its tyranny, and its not only sad, its also sick that NZ is so full of people like istricky who approve of it and support it.

You could just call it ‘The Law’ instead of tyranny. I approve of ‘The Law’

You’re only proving my point. When it’s something you don’t like it’s tyranny, it seems.
1 15
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 5:28pm
Viking2

David Garrett (7,723 comments) says:
January 1st, 2015 at 5:19 pm
) manning a radar gun was a job that didn’t require a properly trained cop; and 2) back in the day when we had traffic cops and real cops we had the lesser breed doing the first job;

Happy New year Mr Garrett and to everyone else. Sad isn’t it that we have to put up with mindless milkmaids and their fellow travelers who show such a poor education that they can’t statistically determine what’s sensible.

Still further to your comment. you mean like this fellow.

http://screencast.com/t/VDukoornD
NEW YEAR – January 1956
not specified where but being New Years Day thought this would be a good post to show the speed cameras of 59 years ago in New Zealand

Demonstration of radar traffic surveillance equipment by the New Zealand Transport Department, January 1956. Traffic officer leaning on the bonnet of a Ford Zephyr motor car monitoring the traffic surveillance equipment, photographed by Morrie Hill.
original photo: http://tinyurl.com/q6lv4zs
zoom in photo: http://tinyurl.com/pmcl75a

https://www.facebook.com/624647914290150/photos/a.739777399443867.1073741834.624647914290150/749745635113710/?type=1&theater

P.S. I suspect that it was the main road thru Upper hutt. Used to be a favourite place.
6 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 5:30pm
itstricky

Incidentally, it couldn’t possibly be that speeders kill people whereas plain old burglery doesn’t, could it? I mean the cops wouldn’t prioritise life over personal property would they DPF?
3 19
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 5:31pm
mikenmild

Sure David, the Police need to prioritise the use of resources. Nothing surprising about that. Personally, I’m happy that they are catching the nutcases who break very simple road rules instead of persecuting people who want to ingest psychoactive substances that happen to be illegal.
2 7
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 5:34pm
Viking2

itstricky (2,041 comments) says:
January 1st, 2015 at 5:31 pm

Incidentally, it couldn’t possibly be that speeders kill people whereas plain old burglery doesn’t, could it? I mean the cops wouldn’t prioritise life over personal property would they DPF?
————————————————————-
I blame the education system for this kind of thinking. Or maybe not, perhaps he is just too thick the comprehend!
9 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 5:38pm
Scott1

setting the speed limit to 101 and policing it is simply this chain of logic

1) lower speed limit means people drive more carefully means less innocent people die- maybe it is 50 lives per year. (That could be high but let’s just assume that for the sake of the example).
3) burglaries cost probably something like 70 million a year at a guess including property damage – better policing might retrieve a few million of that maybe you could discourage a million or two. It is pretty hard to have a big effect. So maybe a few million dollars difference could be made by reallocating police resources.
Net result : let’s say 50 lives vs. let’s say 5 million dollars

At that rate it is easy to argue the police should be diverting resources to policing their speed limits. It remains reasonably easy until the ratio gets well above 1 life/1 million dollars which seems pretty unlikely to be the case.

Of course this doesn’t include other factors like the additional annoyance to some road users and the possible wastage of time due to very slightly slower transit times and some other similar variables and assumes the police have good reason to believe it will save at least a few lives.
1 14
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 5:52pm
Scott1

I am however inclined to agree with DG and think that people manning radar guns do not need to be fully trained police officers. Maybe the issue there is a legislative one in some regard?
6 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 5:56pm
David Garrett

So ‘tricky”…there you are I’m full of joys so I will use your silly pseud…Do you smoke dope perchance? Ever grown some? Nicked the pen from the shop back in the days when you filled out the cheque? Popped a grape or two in your mouth at the supermarket when no-one is looking?

all of the above are technically crimes..And YES I do regard doing 101 on a clear straight dry road as a damn sight less serious than any of them…
12 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 5:58pm
Viking2

Scott, whomsays they are. Around here they are wanna be’s or has beens, sitting in their camera vans.
6 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 5:59pm
Mike

Garrett is wrong.

They’ll turn up if you live in Remuera.
7 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 6:01pm
JMS

Scott1,

Burglary is more than just damage/loss to property.

Anyone who has been burgled will know exactly what I mean.
15 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 6:02pm
David Garrett

Scott: You’ve put your finger on it .. There would need to be legislative changes allowing “non sworn” staff – like the woman who mans the desk at minor police stations – to be put in charge of a radar gun to free up the real cops….One of the many things I would have pursued had my political career not made like a dying comet…

Mike: do you have any evidence of that? I certainly don’t…in fact I suspect they are even less interested since everyone in Remmers can be assumed to have ample insurance…not so poor Miss Fatialofa in Otara…
8 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 6:06pm
itstricky

Speed kills David Garrett. You going to start arguing that? Or just try to get the limit raised to 110 and then start suggesting that going 111 is a minor crime?
1 16
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 6:17pm
Mike

It is admittedly anecdotal, but i have lived there before and had immediate responses, but since moving to a middle / lower-middle class area, it seems the service has declined. I concede that there could have been budget cuts and other pressures that lead to an overall decline, but it seems plausible to me that the wealthier and therefore more powerful constituents would receive special attention.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 6:18pm
David Garrett

Ah tricky…I suggest you read Hide’s piece on the mathematics of the impossibility of staying under the limit when trying to pass someone doing 90…and then come back to me..

And if you are one of those very rare beasts who are happy to do 90 and pull over periodically to let the queue behind you pass, then good upon you…the vast majority of your sort don’t… which leads inevitably to some inpatient person taking some unwarranted risk

And I could turn your silly statement about “speed kills” around and say let’s reduce the limit back to 10 mph and have men with red flags in front of cars…the economy would collapse, and we’d have to re-open the big old mental hospitals…but I’m sure there would be very few road deaths.

but as usual, you didn’t answer any of my questions about your possibly “criminal” behaviour…(stealing pens and grapes in the supermarket)
13 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 6:22pm
srylands

“Speed kills David Garrett. You going to start arguing that? Or just try to get the limit raised to 110 and then start suggesting that going 111 is a minor crime?”

Even though you challenged David, I’ll argue it. Colliding with objects kills. There is nothing magical about a speed limit of 100 km/h. In fine conditions on the open road it is far too low, and ridiculously low on modern motorways. Have you driven in Europe?

I would support a speed limit of 130 km/h on motorways and 120 km/h on suitable highways. And I would support a 10 km/h tolerance. The flip side would be I would double penalties for driving more than 10 km/h over the limits, and triple them for offences of more than 20 km/h over the limits. I would automate such detection, with most “speed detecting” police redeployed to socially useful law enforcement.

I would also redeploy police to detecting and cracking down on dangerous and annoying driving – like driving at 90 km/h in the right lane of motorways, plus a dozen other dangerous practices that require judgement to police.
13 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 6:34pm
Griff

itstricky
speed kills …..

You will not find a single case of speeds as an automobile is capable off killing anyone anywhere ever.
Speed is totally non lethal.
Stopping too fast kills. less slow disruptive traffic would decrease the risk of arseholeing into granny doing 60kmph on the open road and make everyone’s journeys safer. It is about time the police enforced the first rule of the road code with the vigor they display towards speeding drivers.
Keep left at all times and do not obstruct traffic . This means you fuckwits meandering around the country doing 20 or more kmph under the posted speed should either pull over and let others pass or get of the road.
14 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 6:36pm
Disaster Area

Hi David,
I think you’ve highlighted something that has always surprised me about NZ. It’s the distinction between ‘real’ crime (burglary, assault, etc) and ‘pseudo crime’ i.e. Speeding. From what I can see it all stems from when traffic law was enforced by the Ministry of Transport and not the Police. In other words, because speed limits weren’t enforced by the ‘real’ police it wasn’t a ‘real’ crime.

What is the moral distinction between breaking the speed limit (set by parliament) and theft (the law also set by parliament)?

I don’t agree with the argument that speed never causes a crash. If you take any collision then it occurs because one person could not stop their vehicle before they hit another object. If they were going at an appropriate speed for the circumstances then they would have had time to stop and the collision would not occur.
The reducto ad absurdism strawman argument about reducing the speed limit further is just that: absurd. Nobody is suggesting that, they are merely wanting people to stay within the current limits

The other argument that makes me smile is when people claim that drivers will spend more time looking at the speedo than the road. What they actually mean is that they don’t have the skill to keep a car going at a constant speed below 100 kph.

Nobody forces you to overtake. You, as the driver, are in charge of the vehicle and you are responsible for the speed that you go.
3 12
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 6:45pm
wiseowl

No-one has mentioned it but I still believe that a big mistake of Banks was to merge the traffic cops with the police.

Two areas that need to be treated differently.

Separate again.
10 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 6:48pm
David Garrett

srylands: Very well said Sir…I would support all of that….

I would go so far to suggest that second only to young pissed male drivers, the “75kph on the open road” granny/itstricky types/Asian is the biggest cause of road deaths…when someone finally loses patience and overtakes them where they shouldn’t, and causes a multi car pile up…

Incidentally a number of American states recognise that fact, and will instantly take licences off drivers who are impeding the flow of traffic by their low speed..In Florida at least, the onus is then on the driver to prove s/he deserves to be allowed to drive. Sadly those caught thus are often older drivers who are no longer capable of driving on a modern highway…My own father was one who was dangerous for 20 years before he finally lost his licence for driving through a stop sign blissfully unaware that he had caused an accident…
11 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 6:50pm
mikenmild

‘granny/itstricky types/Asian’
Ageist and xenophobic in the same breath. I don’t know who you lumped itstricky in there but he’ll surely be hurting..
2 9
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 7:05pm
waikatogirl

And as Rodney Hide pointed out the other day, it is now impossible to pass someone doing 90kph safely while also staying under 100…Surely there has to be a public backlash sometime soon…

**
DG, I’m sure the head of Road Safety, Wellington was on TV a day or so after the 101km was announced, withdrawing it as there had been a backlash. I know KB people had there say on here!
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 7:10pm
V

Has anyone mentioned the law of unintended consequences? A focus on 1kph tolerance leads to more people looking at the speedo rather than the road, and we get more crashes.

Then there is the issue of constantly changing ‘zones’.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/nrma-welcomes-changes-to-dogs-breakfast-speed-zones/story-fn3dxity-1226119150850
6 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 7:14pm
Bond

Get over it, normally sensible KB commenters.

You have the option of driving at 101kph if you want to. Go for it. Neither police nor government have the means of stopping 101kph driving.

But when you do, you will be doing so in the well-notified knowledge that occasionally (very occasionally indeed) you will be asked to pay an Idiots Tax.

Also remember this, to totally destroy the Farrar moot of this post.

Police are not out there to stop drivers from going 101kph. There are there to stop us from doing 151kph plus – the speed that would be normal if we had NO enforcement.

But seeing as they are having to be out there anyway dissuading 151kph-plus speeds, cops might as well impose the lesser levels of tax while they are at it. It would be utterly stupid, and mismanagement of resources not to.

So let me pose this question for all the nutty commenters here. Do you agree, or don’t you agree, that it is a legitimate use of police time, to dissuade us from driving at say, 151kph or more? (If your answer to this is no, then you are just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative). So, do you then also agree that while police are having to be out there anyway for the 151-plussers, it would be a terrible waste if they didn’t ticket those doing 145 as well?

Once you “get” this much, the rest of pure logic.

I mean, would you advocate that one cancer stick a day smokers be exempt from smoking tax, but 50 smokes a day smokers be assessed for that Idiots Tax.
2 13
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 7:18pm
srylands

No I won’t get over it.

There are two problems – Firstly, the 1 km/h tolerance is daft. Secondly, the open road speed limits are too low. So you are correct – 151 km/h is unacceptable but 130 km/h (on motorways) would be quite acceptable.
10 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 7:28pm
srylands

Anyway I am off into Paraparaumu to run errands. In my 10 minute drive I will pass through 50, 70, 80, and 100 km/h zones. And as I am on 80 demerits I won’t be driving at 51, 71, 81, or 101 km/h in any of them. 🙂
8 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 7:31pm
Griff

The limits have not changed for many years. Cars and the roads we drive on certainly have.
7 3
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 7:32pm
David Garrett

Ah milky…You wonderfully PC government servant you…Please don’t try and tell me you haven’t been stuck behind an oldperson/Asian on the open road, and then gone “fucking XX’s” under your breath after you finally get past them?..at 101kph of course…

If you can honestly deny ever doing that, then you are a triumph of modern social engineering…
13 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 7:36pm
Disaster Area

Again, let me make the point: nobody forces you to overtake. YOU are the one who gets frustrated. YOU are the one pressing the accelerator. YOU are the one who decides to break the speed limit. YOU are the one who decides to overtake.

People who drive at 90 kmh are not breaking the law. They are quite entitled to pootle around at 90 kmh all day if they wish, because they aren’t breaking the law! Just because it frustrates you does not give you the right to break the law.

If the worst comes to the worst and you have an accident overtaking someone, exactly how much sympathy do you expect from the courts when you say ” I HAD to overtake, the person in front was only doing 90?”
3 16
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 7:36pm
scrubone

The limits have not changed for many years.

The open road limit hasn’t changed for many years. Other limits have been, with the introduction of 60, 80 and even 90 kph speed limit zones. And I think I’ve even seen a 40 somewhere.

I can’t say it’s an innovation I like – it’s easy to work out if you’re supposed to be 50, 70 or 100 – much less so for the more graduated approach. I note there’s one small town south of Oamaru that has no less than three different speed limits – nuts.
7 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 7:37pm
srylands

My favourite was the PI woman with a flower in her hair driving at 80 km/h in the right lane of the Johnsonville – Porirua motorway. I refused to overtake in the left lane so sat on her and flashed my lights. For a while. She finally moved over. Gave me a big smile and wave as a I glared at her. 🙂 I had to laugh. She had no idea.
13 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 7:40pm
kowtow

bond, you’re no 007.

Who’s talking 151?

Plain simple fact is the cops allowed 10 % tlerance due to speedo variations. They reduced that to 5 and now nil.

I see the road toll is up. So how’s their bean counting working? It ain’t and never will.

Please see my link at top of post, for some common sense.
14 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 7:40pm
srylands

“People who drive at 90 kmh are not breaking the law. They are quite entitled to pootle around at 90 kmh all day if they wish, because they aren’t breaking the law! ”

No they are NOT entitled. Society operates according to accepted norms. Just because something is legal does not mean you should do it. People that drive at 90 kmh on the open road are a menace. Those that do it in the fast lane of motorways are a danger. Yet they are not breaking the law. (In many countries they would be.)

I agree it is not practical to stop people driving at 90 km/h on the open road. However they should be targeted to assess why they are driving at that speed, and if they are fit to drive. If they insist on doing it they should be educated to pull off the road when they are holding people up to let people pass.

So I repeat – they are not “entitled”.
11 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 7:46pm
RF

Disaster Area. 7.36pm.

On Tuesday I was driving in a mountainous area with narrow winding roads and very little straights. 100 kph area … No passing lanes. I was stuck behind an elderly motorist driving at 60kph who kept swerving over the White centre line. No reception for *555.

Not sure how you would have dealt with this but after 15 mts my blood pressure plus the line of vehicles behind was hitting boiling point.
11 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 7:50pm
David Garrett

Disaster: (Apt…) No, those who drive at 90 are not usually breaking the law…but when they are driving like the PI woman srylands mentions – or like just about every Asian in Auckland – they most certainly ARE…

As someone said way up thread: One of the most fundamental road rules is “keep as far left as possible”…Someone who is “pootling” – at whatever speed – is almost certainly not doing that…

RF: anyone who has driven on SH16 – the recommended alternative to SH 1 at holiday time – has encountered that…and it takes a man like old Milky to remain cool and calm under such conditions…Perhaps it’s that “Gliding On” type training he had all those years ago…
9 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 7:54pm
OneTrack

Does anybody have any idea how long most passing lanes or slow vehicle lanes are. Because, using Hide’s calculations, if they are less than 1.2 km long, and you are behind the truck or trailer at 90kph, you aren’t going to (legally) get past. But what about Cletus in the Subaru behind you – is he going to patiently wait? Or is he going to start tailgating and/or blasting on his horn and, eventually passing you and the truck/trailer just before (or after ) the end of the passing lane.

No, this seems extremely short-sighted and anti-safety on the part of the traffic authorities. What problem do they actually think they are solving? Because they have created some new ones that weren’t there before. It just reinforces the perception that many have that the cops are just there for revenue collection.
12 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 7:56pm
RF

DG. 7.54pm. I eventually managed to overtake but i was out of my comfort zone. Everytime I started to overtake a bloody car appeared coming towards me. The elderly driver would have learnt a few words that I am sure he had never heard before. Drove for 5 hours that day and never saw a cop.
7 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 8:03pm
itstricky

Ageist and xenophobic in the same breath. I don’t know who you lumped itstricky in there but he’ll surely be hurting..

He seems incapable of a sentence without some sort of slur in it, that is for sure.
3 10
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 8:22pm
Chuck Bird

“And as I am on 80 demerits I won’t be driving at 51, 71, 81, or 101 km/h in any of them.”

@srylands

How did you manage to lose so many demerits?

I set my cruise control on about 100 k and if i had to pass a 20 metre truck and trailer I do so quickly probably hitting 130 to 140 for a moment and then go to cruise control. I cannot remember when I lost any demerit points. Maybe I am just lucky.
7 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 8:31pm
itstricky

Ah tricky…I suggest you read Hide’s piece on the mathematics

Didn’t read it. Can’t be arsed. Did it mention passing lanes?

I find it funny that you presume to know my driving skill based on my assertion of the current speed limit.

You, srylands and Griff seem to somehow seem to be arguing that the faster you go, the smaller the mess (to steal another phrase from the MoT). Bond and DisasterArea are showing you the light and you’re even trying to argue that.

Grapes and pens? They don’t kill. Cars do. That’s were the priorities are.
1 15
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 8:34pm
Alan Wilkinson

When I drive on the road I expect to encounter the same sort of idiots who comment on Kiwiblog in support of brain-dead speed limit enforcement. Fortunately they rarely hold me up for long. And the cops only rarely defeat my crap detectors.

Let’s face the facts. The world is full of idiots and we just have to navigate around them. It would be nice if politics was intelligent, but idiots will always have a majority. And Parliament will always be full of the kind of people who want to control everyone else’s life. To expect sanity from above is futile. You have to make it for yourself.
12 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 8:35pm
Bond

Hypothetical. If there were no police on the roads at all, what speed would New Zealanders drive at?

If there were no police on the roads; if they were all taken off the roads to investigate the theft of every stolen can of Pepsi, what speed would YOU drive at?

I guarantee you would not restrict yourselves to 101kph.

And thus in a nutshell, is demonstrated the stupidity of the moot on which this thread is based.

The assumption of this thread is that police are there to stop us doing 101kph. They are not.

Police are on the roads because if police were not on the roads, many would be driving routinely at over 150kph.

Grow some brains.
1 12
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 8:40pm
srylands

“@srylands

How did you manage to lose so many demerits?”

Three speeding offences:

1. SH1 passing lane overtaking a truck. Hit 136 km/h while passing. Cop behind me. 50 demerits.

2. Urban. 62 km/h in 50 zone. No excuse. 20 demerits.

3. SH4. Labour weekend. 109 km/h in 100 zone. 10 demerits.

Total = 80 demerits.
6 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 8:41pm
mikenmild

Kiwiblog continues to have the capacity to surprise me after all these years. People who have the temerity to drive at 90 are now described as a ‘menace’. Yes, they truly are the criminals here.
1 12
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 8:41pm
RF

attention to the knuckle dragging fuck wit that gave me down ticks for my recent posts concerning dangerous elderly drivers I wish you a happy new year and safe driving.

I suspect that you were the sack of shit that slowed me down.
5 5
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 8:45pm
srylands

“People who have the temerity to drive at 90 are now described as a ‘menace’.”

Damn straight they are.
9 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 8:46pm
mikenmild

Luckily, an actual menace like you will be off the road for a while once you succumb to your desire to speed again.
2 9
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 8:49pm
dime

“Personally, I’m happy that they are catching the nutcases who break very simple road rules instead of persecuting people who want to ingest psychoactive substances that happen to be illegal.”

so, 60 year old mumsy doing 54km/h in a 50 zone is a nutcase?

but loser sitting at home shooting heroin is just a “persecuted” person?

cool.

are you a druggy milky?
8 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 8:50pm
Nostalgia-NZ

People are not entitled to do 90ks but they are entitled to do this ‘ I refused to overtake in the left lane so sat on her and flashed my lights.’ And if that caused an accident?

With all this exasperation about ‘slow drivers’ doing 90ks it seems to be overlooked that anybody towing a boat or caravan, trailer etc, or driving a truck above a certain weight cannot do more than 90ks per hour in a 100 limit area.

Just stuff about the original topic – policing crime v policing traffic enforcement: Check out burglary statistics since 1994 to 2013. Highest reported in 1997 (80,773 – cleared 9,458) Lowest 2013 (52,247 – cleared 9,158). Lowest road toll for over 20 years or more 3 years ago from memory. So it looks like it isn’t either or, but that police are pulling back both road the toll and burglary figures. Although it could be argued in favour of the speed tolerance restrictions that the road toll is actually increasing. In terms of specialist police, Highway Patrol, serious crash scene investigators, CVIU hardly able to call such units revenue gatherers – although many heavy transport operators may not agree – even if agreeing about the safety aspect.
3 4
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 8:50pm
Alan Wilkinson

@Bond, you have no idea, have you? Every day I drive on roads where it is completely unsafe even to reach the speed limit, let alone exceed it. Surprisingly I do not drive at an unsafe speed on them. Neither do I drive at an unsafe speed on any other roads, nor have when enforcement was absent or not made revenue efficient by radar technologies.

Actually I care about my own life far more than any semi-literate and innumerate cop or bureaucrat. Or you.
9 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 8:52pm
mikenmild

Nice of you to care, dime, but I obey all the laws, even the ones I don’t agree with.
0 6
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 8:52pm
Griff

Disaster Area

People who drive at 90 kmh are not breaking the law. They are quite entitled to pootle around at 90 kmh all day if they wish, because they aren’t breaking the law! Just because it frustrates you does not give you the right to break the law.

You are a prime candidate to have your privilege of sharing the road with the rest of us removed due to your ignorance of the law.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM303041.html
Keeping left

(1) A driver, when driving, must at all times drive as near as practicable to the left side of the roadway unless this rule otherwise provides.

(2) If a driver’s speed, when driving, is such as to impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic, that driver must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, move the vehicle as far as practicable to the left side of the roadway when this is necessary to allow following traffic to pass.

(3) A driver may drive in the right lane in the direction of travel when driving on a multi-lane road if—

(a) the driver is turning right, or making a U-turn from the centre of the road, and is giving the prescribed signal of that driver’s intention to turn right; or

(b) the driver is passing; or

(c) the left lane is unavailable to the driver; or

(d) the driver is required by any provision of this rule to drive in the right lane; or

(e) a variable lane control downward-facing arrow sign indicates that the driver must drive in the right lane; or

(f) the driver is avoiding an obstruction; or

(g) the traffic in all other lanes is congested; or

(h) the traffic in every lane is congested.
11 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 8:53pm
dime

milky – good to hear.

stand by your nutcase statement? cause i bet your mumsy used to drive over 51km/h…
6 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 8:54pm
mikenmild

I’ll modify it, dime. The nutcases are the ones who insist their judgement and driving skills are so superior that they should be able to ignore the speed limits. People who infringe slightly will not be penalised unduly and should only be regarded as nutcases if they offend habitually.
1 11
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 8:58pm
srylands

“So it looks like it isn’t either or, but that police are pulling back both road the toll and burglary figures. ”

Can you provide any evidence that policing – especially policing of speeding – is responsible for the well documented decline in the New Zealand road toll over the last 25 years?
6 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 8:59pm
mikenmild

Griff
Are you able to cite any cases where travelling at 90 has been judged to be unreasonable?
0 7
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 9:00pm
Alan Wilkinson

Mikenmild, you have my sympathy. If you don’t infringe at least one stupid law or regulation every day you must be either catatonic or in prison. Sorry to hear about your condition.
8 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 9:00pm
David Garrett

tricky: (Arent I being so nice to you?) You have just revealed one of the major differences between you lefties and righties like me…Faced with some argument you don’t like, you just don’t bother to read it, so you can pretend the argument -n supporting evidence – doesn’t exist. We on the other hand carefully read everything cited by the lefties as “evidence” for their arguments…and you know what? Frequently the paper/work cited actually says something quite different!

Best example (a tad off topic I’m afraid, but a worthy illustration) the paper by Steven Levitt in which he argues that one of the reasons crime reduced sharply in the US in the 1990’s was more readily available abortions…He does indeed make that argument, in a paper which listed six reasons which Levitt thought had caused the precipitate decline…and guess what? More readily available abortions was number six, and in Levitt’s view by far the weakest causative effect of the six. Numbers one and two were more comprehensive policing, and longer sentences…but the lefties NEVER seem to mention those…

Oh and PS: Hide’s piece DOES indeed refer to passing lanes, and demonstrates that you simply cant pass a car doing 90 while staying under 100 yourself in the length of the passing lane..but don’t bother reading it…It will only upset you if you do…
13 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 9:03pm
dime

Milky – that makes more sense.

Do you think 109kmh is unreasonable? On a new motorway in a newish car?

From what I can tell, the cops aren’t enforcing this mandate at Street level. Not vigorously anyway.

The police rely on public cooperation. Fining the bejesus out of us makes their job hard.
7 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 9:03pm
mikenmild

Alan
Sometimes I cross the pedestrian crossing after the signal has started flashing.
dime
I think the stretches of motorway where a 110 limit would be okay are probably so limited that it would be a waste of time making the change. How many journeys does anyone make where an average difference of 10kph in speed means a significant loss of time?
2 6
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 9:03pm
Bond

So Wilkinson, you say that if there were no police on the roads, then no-one would drive at excessive speeds. That’s a retarded opinion.
3 9
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 9:08pm
waikatogirl

Milky, the problem with people who drive at 90km in a 100km area is that the driver seems to believe he has the RIGHT to hold everyone else up because he has the right to drive at 90km. He is controlling those behind him who choose to drive at a 100km, which is their RIGHT. Just pull over, easy enough to do!
10 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 9:11pm
itstricky

tricky: (Arent I being so nice to you?) You have just revealed one of the major differences between you lefties and righties like me…Faced with some argument you don’t like, you just don’t bother to read it

OR….. instead of some fundamental difference between humans (we are all human, remember, left = human, right = human) it could just be New Year’s Day, David. Perhaps I just REALLY can’t be arsed. Perhaps I have better things to do?

If Rodney mentions passing lanes, that’s all good. The law is the law to stop people from going faster – you can analyse it until you’re blue in the face but it doesn’t change the fact that 1kph over the limit is breaking the law. It also doesn’t change the fact that pens and grapes have killed bugger all people, but cars have killed many. And that’s why speeding has priority. To address DPFs original posting. Again.
0 11
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 9:11pm
Alan Wilkinson

@Bond, let me break this to you gently, I don’t care if they break the speed limit. I only care if they drive unsafely or inconsiderately.
11 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 9:11pm
itstricky

Milky, the problem with people who drive at 90km in a 100km area is that the driver seems to believe he has the RIGHT to hold everyone else up because he has the right to drive at 90km. He is controlling those behind him who choose to drive at a 100km, which is their RIGHT. Just pull over, easy enough to do!

Of course, someone following @ 100kph is going to think that, aren’t they? Regardless of what the person in front actually thinks they are, or aren’t doing. Defensive driving? Ring any bells?
0 9
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 9:12pm
Griff

If a driver’s speed, when driving, is such as to impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic,

Travailing at 90 kmph in the right hand lane of the motorway in lite traffic is unlawful at any time.
Yet I often run in the left hand lane at approx 100 kmph speed undertake slow traffic in the other lanes .
That the police dont enforce the road code when it comes to obstructive drivers is unreasonable interpretation of the law. The police force is obsessed with speed ticketing for revenue gathering as its only focus not the safe and efficient flow of traffic as per the law.
9 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 9:13pm
Bond

wilkinson. No need to break it gently. I already noticed that you don’t care.
1 4
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 9:16pm
RF

I have a profile of the slow drivers that are bloody dangerous.

Male, skinny, scruffy hair / beard, glasses, wears shorts , David Bain cardigan and God bothering shoes, votes Green, drives a clapped out oil burner yet does not support oil exploration. Smokes dope.
7 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 9:16pm
Bond

Wilkinson, I too don’t care if people speed. Just so long as they pay the Idiots Tax that goes with it. The Idiots Tax is there to cover the cost of Police having been there to prevail over 25 years of relentlessly bringing the road toll down. Good job.
0 8
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 9:19pm
waikatogirl

Of course, someone following @ 100kph is going to think that, aren’t they? Regardless of what the person in front actually thinks they are, or aren’t doing. Defensive driving? Ring any bells?

Why is it up to you to control someone who wishes to drive at the speed limit. The person behind you is not breaking the law, you are just being an arrogant fw who believes you know best. This may cause frustration on the road leading to erratic actions.
7 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 9:21pm
srylands

“to cover the cost of Police having been there to prevail over 25 years of relentlessly bringing the road toll down. ”

I am sure you don’t believe this. You are simply making shit up.
6 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 9:22pm
Alan Wilkinson

@Bond, here’s a little research project for you. Go check out the fatality/km driven curves by country and see if you can detect any statistically significant différences in the rates of décline that correlate with rigid enforcement of speed limits.
9 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 9:24pm
David Garrett

Ah tricky, tricky…I am well aware pens and grapes don’t kill people…that wasn’t the point of my illustration…it was rather to rebut your “argument” that every law must be slavishly obeyed, and no tolerance for overtaking speeds over 100 is now apparently “the law”… and therefore must also be slavishly obeyed, even if it’s actually dangerous to do so…

As you well know, my reference to nicking ballpoints and eating grapes at the supermarket was to suggest that some breaches of “laws” are so trifling that everyone ignores them (the law even has an ancient rule for the concept, which I’m sure you’ve also heard of)…But you know that was my point…You are simply being a wanker…(sorry, cant think of a nice adjective that won’t offend you that expresses the meaning so well…)
7 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 9:30pm
Bond

Wilkinson, no, you have ignored my questions, so don’t propose silly wild goose chase research projects for me.

So I’ll ask you again. And still you will be unable to face the question.

Hypothetical. If police were not present on the roads, there would be many drivers who would routinely drive at excessive speeds.

It’s a statement of the obvious, but no-one here wants to admit the undeniable truth of it. It’s an inconvenient truth for the whingers on this thread who (some of whom) are actually usually quite intelligent, but on this speed thing, lose all common sense.
0 7
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 9:31pm
RRM

Broooooooo…

Keen 2 swap 4 a GTX, gated, on cutties, 17s on front, (no cennies) skid rimz on bak, goez hard 4 what it iz, auto? No wof. No reg. No cert for 17s. Cash my way. FTP hard cuz. Yo f**k yo littil J0hnNy hit it nana.
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 9:32pm
Disaster Area

Hi Griff,
Thanks for posting that, however you are misunderstanding my point. What you have posted relates to a person’s position on the road, not their speed. It states that they should keep left (no argument here) or pull over as soon as is reasonably practicable to allow traffic to pass (again, no argument here).

Nowhere does it say anything about people having the right to break the speed limit whilst overtaking another vehicle.
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 9:35pm
Bond

Srylands, by all means you can accuse me of making things up. But you’re the one routinely paying the Idiots Tax. lol.
0 5
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 9:36pm
waikatogirl

Sticky: Of course, someone following @ 100kph is going to think that, aren’t they? Regardless of what the person in front actually thinks they are, or aren’t doing. Defensive driving? Ring any bells?

***
Yeah thanks for the defensive driving lesson stickyiky but I have never ever even had a speeding fine. Unlike some I handle driving well. The trouble is the roads are policed for the lowest common denominator, ie the worst drivers who can’t handle a car outside urban areas, and not too well in urban areas either.
Shame, cause my XR8 runs smoothly at higher speeds. However, I drive according to the conditions and mostly drive to the speed limit, unlike those who insist on dragging my car off… I let them pull away into the distance while I laugh at them 😉
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 9:38pm
itstricky

As you well know, my reference to nicking ballpoints and eating grapes at the supermarket was to suggest that some breaches of “laws” are so trifling that everyone ignores them (the law even has an ancient rule for the concept, which I’m sure you’ve also heard of)…But you know that was my point…You are simply being a wanker…(sorry, cant think of a nice adjective that won’t offend you that expresses the meaning so well…)

I’m not being a wanker at all. Breaking the law by nicking ballpoints and eating grapes doesn’t kill people. Increased speed does. To go back to the original post, that’s why policing of the speed limit has priority over burglaries.

I’m not sure at what point I said every law should be slavishly obeyed. I did point out that there must be some sort of limit. And once that limit has been reached it’s either black or white. Not some shade of grey depending on how good a driver *you* think you are.
0 5
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 9:41pm
OTGO

“I note there’s one small town south of Oamaru that has no less than three different speed limits – nuts.”
And that town would be Hampden. The local cop must pay for his salary and outgoings from that area alone.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 9:44pm
waikatogirl

Bond: Hypothetical. If police were not present on the roads, there would be many drivers who would routinely drive at excessive speeds.

***
I hate to break it to you, but it isn’t hypothetical, there are many drivers who routinely drive at excessive speeds with police present on the roads!
They just hope they don’t get caught. Or some just don’t care, eventually get taken to court where their $40,000 of fines is written off for a few hours of community service.
5 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 1, 2015 9:44pm

More comments:

1
2
›

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« NZ vs AU dollar

Duke of Wellington dies »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

Property Rights for “Sesame Street”
Not PC
There seems a consensus that the COP series currently in Azerbaijan is transfer of wealth from richer to poorer?
No Minister
Woman of the day
Hompaddock
Green Party out of the woke frying pan into the woke fire
The Daily Blog
ComCom lays criminal charges on OneNZ – but not on Otago University for far worse breaches of the Fair Trading Act.
Point of Order
Open mike 25/11/2024
The Standard
Automakers’ Costly Gamble on EVs: A Lesson in Ignoring Consumer Demand
Utopia
Treaty Principles Debate
NZCPR
Justice in Brazil
No Right Turn
The transgender agenda sunk Kamala
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
What does “reciprocity” mean in New Zealand laws?
Croaking Cassandra
Media Link: “A View from Afar” on the US elections.
Kiwipolitico
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d

%d

Share this:

Like this: