George W Bush < Beware Rant enclosed>

[biff]

Go Darryl!
I agree, remember the prior debates on this subject and the "groups" general
attitude. If its legislated then it must be both right and good for us,
forget any logical or illogical argument to the contrary, its not permitted.
Not that NZ'ers are sheep like, remember, the speed limit was reduced to
conserve fuel, reduce wear and tear on our roads and supply revenue, oh yea
nearly forgot; save lives, and its been an outstanding success. Right!

That does not mean that any of the revenue collected will be spent on any
positive contribution to those that supplied said revenue. Better driver
education...errrr Nup
Improved roads...errr Nup
Forget it, its consolidated revenue, consider for just a short time,
actually ask yourself, where does the tax take on fuel go, the % we pay for
roading, all our warrants and registration, not to mention the millions
collected for Auckland, where do we as drivers see any benefit?
But never mind its all for our own good. I don't advocate stupidity behind
the wheel, speed, silly stunts, using a cell phone, reading the morning
paper at traffic lights, the application of makeup or aerosol hair products,
or doing 45 in a 50 zone (just to be "super" law abiding), and yes I've see
them all.

I do expect to be treated as a thinking adult, and I expect a decent "bang
for the buck", as drivers we all have a stake in the infrastructure, and in
staying alive, but when I see 50+ of our boys in blue breathalysing people
who were lawfully going about their business, I may be a cynic but I call it
a fishing expedition, and when they do 600+ drivers and find 13 with excess
blood alcohol level and some 20 with no warrants or expired rego, its
obviously a cash concern and an effort to meet their multimillion dollar
contract with Land Transport.
I have been driving for some 30 years, both professionally and as a private
citizen, and also on two wheels in 3 different countries so I'm not what I
would consider a "young hoon" (been there done that)
For the record ONE speeding ticket, and one accident, I had to drop my 750
Honda in the wet when a car and caravan cut a corner, other than that, a
clean driving record.

So open your eyes and consider what we as drivers should be getting from our
legislators, considering by fair means or foul the millions we annually
contribute to the government coffers.
Decent driver education at a reasonable age and with reasonable expectations
(or restrictions)
Quality roads well designed and maintained
A fair shake for the police, I'm sure they aren't happy being considered tax
collectors
Speed limits that reflect the roads ability to sustain it (I assume the
vehicle can, and the driver should. i.e. a license and a warrant)
In Aussie for example there are sections of highways where the speed limit
is 110k, the road has been designed for it.
So in the end we will all keep paying, and occasionally someone will have a
rush of blood to the head and find a deserted piece of road and "speed" and
the soapbox self righteous will scream, well that's the way the human race
has always been, and I fervently hope will always be, because if not, we
would all be still driving behind a guy with a flag or lantern, and still
wondering if we really could fly.
Measured excess at the right place and time, nothing like it to stir our
quest for more.
And yes, some time the law is an ass.
I guess this is my annual rant...yea I know thank the lord for that.
Happy, safe and exhilarating driving.

Cheers,
Biff
ZOOM1N

[EricW]

I have been trying to restrain myself from entering this debate, my opinions
are well known, however let me again state what I believe to be the
underlying principle of good law, and that of course applies to speeding as
much as it does for anything else, right up to Murder.

Good law is that which 90% of the population will comply with voluntarily
and without legislation.

If 90% of people would, in ideal conditions, drive on the Southern Motorway
at 110 Km/h, then the correct speed limit is 110 Km/h.

If 90% would drive along Arkles Strand at 20 Km/h, that is the proper limit
for that piece of road.

In other words, the law should recognise that the vast majority of people
are not stupid, in fact, THAT IS WHY WE HAVE A VOTE! The majority rules,
(Well it would if we did not have MMP).

Most people, most of the time, do not set out to put themselves in danger
when they drive. This does not mean slavish adherence to artificial limits,
but it does mean that they apply common sense.

Much of the resentment directed towards the Police stems from the fact that
their speed enforcement criminalises normal human behaviour, and is seen as
enhancing revenue above safety.

The application of the revenue raised is also not transparent and the route
to improving roading standards, driver education and re-education is so
studded by Political Correctness and Environmental nonsense.

Of course, there has to be a limit, not least because the "law of squares"
takes us to a point at which such accidents as do occur in normal sensible
driving are too catastrophic to be tolerated. (The law of squares= Double
the speed results in 4 times the impact) and at that point heavy enforcement
is justified. But to set this limit at a point which captures normal
behaviour or sets traps for law abiding people is morally wrong and
judicially indefensible.

There is a lot to be said for enforcing deviations from normal traffic
speed, in other words ticketing drivers who are faster or slower than the
traffic stream, regardless of the speed limit. If all the traffic is doing
120, their relative speed is zero and they are relatively safe and the
majority believes that 120 is the correct speed at the time. Those doing 90
and those doing 150 are out of line with societal norms and should be pinged
accordingly.

But overall, and with the above reservations, I agree with Mark, excessive
speed, (excessive for the conditions) has no place on a public road.

Regards

Eric

[EricW]

I have been trying to restrain myself from entering this debate, my opinions
are well known, however let me again state what I believe to be the
underlying principle of good law, and that of course applies to speeding as
much as it does for anything else, right up to Murder.

Good law is that which 90% of the population will comply with voluntarily
and without legislation.

If 90% of people would, in ideal conditions, drive on the Southern Motorway
at 110 Km/h, then the correct speed limit is 110 Km/h.

If 90% would drive along Arkles Strand at 20 Km/h, that is the proper limit
for that piece of road.

In other words, the law should recognise that the vast majority of people
are not stupid, in fact, THAT IS WHY WE HAVE A VOTE! The majority rules,
(Well it would if we did not have MMP).

Most people, most of the time, do not set out to put themselves in danger
when they drive. This does not mean slavish adherence to artificial limits,
but it does mean that they apply common sense.

Much of the resentment directed towards the Police stems from the fact that
their speed enforcement criminalises normal human behaviour, and is seen as
enhancing revenue above safety.

The application of the revenue raised is also not transparent and the route
to improving roading standards, driver education and re-education is so
studded by Political Correctness and Environmental nonsense.

Of course, there has to be a limit, not least because the "law of squares"
takes us to a point at which such accidents as do occur in normal sensible
driving are too catastrophic to be tolerated. (The law of squares= Double
the speed results in 4 times the impact) and at that point heavy enforcement
is justified. But to set this limit at a point which captures normal
behaviour or sets traps for law abiding people is morally wrong and
judicially indefensible.

There is a lot to be said for enforcing deviations from normal traffic
speed, in other words ticketing drivers who are faster or slower than the
traffic stream, regardless of the speed limit. If all the traffic is doing
120, their relative speed is zero and they are relatively safe and the
majority believes that 120 is the correct speed at the time. Those doing 90
and those doing 150 are out of line with societal norms and should be pinged
accordingly.

But overall, and with the above reservations, I agree with Mark, excessive
speed, (excessive for the conditions) has no place on a public road.

Regards

Eric

[Darryl Curran]

well put, agree completely Eric.

Darryl Curran

[Darryl Curran]

well put, agree completely Eric.

Darryl Curran

[biff]

Well reasoned Eric, I agree, I am sorry for the rant <I did warn you>, I get
just get annoyed at the cash we all donate and the apparent zero return.
Driver education in high schools would be a good start, and reasoned
enforcement not as you say turning normal/average motorists into available
targets.
I once heard a police officer refer to some sections of the Auckland
motorway as "Target rich environments".
Now that didn't impress me much at all.
Cheers all and keep safe,
Biff

[Dez]

Most reasoned & readable "rant" I've seen in a long time. Well putThanks
Eric

[Dez]

Most reasoned & readable "rant" I've seen in a long time. Well putThanks
Eric