Kia ora and welcome to !newzealand, a place to share and discuss anything about Aotearoa in general
Rules:
FAQ ~ NZ Community List ~ Join Matrix chatroom
Banner image by Bernard Spragg
Got an idea for next month's banner?
Interesting that they're coming here. They are a common form of speed camera in the UK I believe, where they are generally hated. I'd love to see some data about their use and reducing crashes.
My concern is you could speed through an area, realize your mistake and pull over for 5 minutes, and avoid any fine. Perhaps this is an unwarranted concern, however.
Doing the math:
Lol, fair point mate
😄
No one who is going to baulk at this as an attack on their "right" to speed is going to stop to average it out.
Stopping is even more anathema to them than driving under the limit.
They'll just whine about it being "bullshit" to the rest of their mates.
Very true.
You could, but you will likely remember what the limit is next time.
The idea I think is for people who "normally" drive at 10 or 20kph above the speed limit, encouraging them to normally drive at the speed limit instead.
I guess we also don't know the threshold (1kph over probably won't get you a ticket, but will 5kph?)
Yeah the threshold would be interesting.
If we could normalize doing no more than the posted speed in this country, driving would be much more pleasant. Especially long trips.
It even right there in the name "limit".
It saddens me how many people think it's the lower limit.
I remember them in the UK when we visited as long ago as 2012. My main recollection was that they seemed very effective at causing you to think very carefully about your speed, because in a long line of traffic nobody wants to be the person who drives extra slow to make up for accidentally going too fast a few seconds earlier.
I'm curious to know the reasons for them apparently being hated.
They’re hated because they’re seen as more intrusion, and make drivers stupid. Drivers will speed, and then slam on the brakes and go past the cameras slowly.
The UK is very different when it comes to speed cameras.
They also changed the rules (semi) recently; so that they will only install speed cameras in places where speeding has caused accidents. Which is reasonable imo.
That assumes they're actually making a mistake, instead of habitually driving too damn fast because they think they're more in control than physics is.
I think it's more likely to lead to people slowing down and not doing stuff like weaving in and out of traffic so they can keep going fast.
Whenever I feel like traffic is moving too slowly for me, I think about how long it would take me to walk instead. And then I chill out and enjoy my private climate controlled capsule and maybe turn up my music.
Nice.
On the Road to Zero point. The only way to reduce crashes to a near zero quantity is to reduce the number of cars and car trips. Which can only be achieved by providing viable alternatives to driving. Which would ideally be intercity, regional, and city trains that don't just cater to the 9-5 work day commuter.
I would take trains if there were reliable services between cities I want to travel between.
If this happens in my lifetime I'd be stoked.
At minimum I want intercity services on our existing train lines.
I don't want to drive between home in Whangarei and mum/family in Auckland. There already exists a train line, let me pay for tickets.
I just want to add that viable alternatives to driving means that those who don't want to drive, or are unable to drive, or who should not be driving, they then do not have to drive.
The people who scraped through and eventually passed the driving test, but even after a number of years driving are barely competent then don't need to be driving.
When driving isn't necessary for personal mobility, then the licensing and testing can be much stricter, or, as strict as necessary for safety without as much backlash.
This. This this this this this
This is quite common in Australia I understand. Much better idea
This is a very good idea on bridges and some tunnels especially, where there is little room to pull over and rescue services would have a harder time reaching a collision scene.
I encountered one visiting New Orleans not too long ago, the visitor guide said that you have to take something along the lines of 1 minute per mile of the bridge, if you cross much earlier than that you will get ticketed.
From a privacy perspective, I don't like this. From a road safety perspective, it sounds like it might not be as effective as they claim:
And Ministry of Transport research from 2017 found 85 per cent of the road toll occurred below the speed limit.
Matthew-Wilson said speed cameras, even the new point-to-point cameras, would not lower the road toll.
He said speed alone was a factor in just 15 per cent of fatal crashes, adding there is a minority of people who would speed no matter what, and they were the ones who were involved in speed-related crashes.
"Speed cameras seem like a magic solution, but they're not: they alienate ordinary motorists without affecting the behaviour of the tiny minority who cause most fatal crashes," he said.
A collision at a lower speed is less severe: simple as that.
A less severe collision lowers the chance of a fatality and lowers the severity of other injuries.
Arguing that an imperfect (or partially effective) measure shouldn't be implemented is disingenuous.
That ignores that they are specifically targetting the highest risk roads, which would likely increase the likelihood of being in that 15%.
15% is 1 in 6.
Seems like a 1 in 6 reduction would be a great thing.
I don't really understand this Matthew-Wilson guy's argument:
"Speed cameras seem like a magic solution, but they're not: they alienate ordinary motorists without affecting the behaviour of the tiny minority who cause most fatal crashes," he said. "The sad fact is: the idiots who cause most fatal accidents tend to ignore speed limits anyway." A 2009 AA analysis of fatal accidents found these crashes 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 licence or WoF – who are basically renegades."
And then he says
Matthew-Wilson said he favoured speed advisory signs, which simply show motorists what speed they're doing, without issuing a ticket.
"The fact is, most drivers will slow down if you remind them that they're going too fast."
So he's saying people obey road signs, and speeding is only really done by these special outlaw people who dgaf about anything we do so there's no point in even trying?
I kind of wonder what he's basing this theory on.
He cites that study from 16 years ago but if they are able to categorize these people then surely catching them and taking them off the roads would be a good idea?
Matthew is a lead-foot and doesn't want to change, because he is 'a safe driver' who always 'drives to the conditions'. He knows that speed limits are set 'for the people with the worst reaction times' and an accident 'will never happen to him' because he is a great driver.
Source:
I was Matthew when I was 19. Whether we want to admit it or not, a lot of us were. There are good reasons why insurance is more expensive for drivers that age.
I remember LTSA ran a campaign about that back in the 2000s. One stat that stood out to me was that over half of people estimate that they themselves are an "above average" driver...
In-laws in the UK moaned about these a bunch when they were first introduced over there - their problem being "everyone is staring at their speed rather than paying attention to the road", as if:
Realistically, most cars these days have cruise control. If your car doesn't, the car in front of you (or in front of them) probably does. So it's unlikely you'll be unable to get the speed right.
A much harder thing is the mental hurdle of driving at a speed lower than it seems the road can handle (because our assessment is based on everything going right).
Driving with cruise control enabled tends to reduce situational awareness and increase response times, particularly if it also enables the driver to be distracted by other things.
I would argue that an attentive driver who ignores posted limits and instead adjusts their speed to be appropriate to their situation is a far safer driver than a distracted driver with their cruise control set to the limit.
Nice, glad to see more countries adopting these. We've had them in NL for a few years now. In the beginning people of course complained, but seeing as they're always clearly signposted it's become not as socially acceptable to complain about as regular speed cams.
You can also always immediately tell when you've entered one. Suddenly even the BMWs are driving 100. Especially on big roads like the A2 it's funny, six lanes of cars driving the exact same speed.
Since NZ is almost certainly modeling off overseas implementation, I'm curious; do you know if there's a threshold, like if the average works out to be 1kph over the limit, do you get a ticket?
Well yes, there's a 3 km/h correction. But that's a blanket rule, so it's also for old speed cams and mobile equipment. I don't know how other eu countries do it