Well it looks like those idiots down in wellington are
up there old tricks again. Draft proposals are being
drawn up to lower the speed limit to 80 KMH and to
lower the alowable blood alcohol limit down by 0.03.
they said that 7 people died in car accidents last
year that had an alcohol level between the existing
and the new limit. So obviously thats seven people a
year that theyll save!!! But how about the 5000
people who will now be judged to be "Drunk" and will
loose their licences and jobs and homes because those
Morons in Wellington havent worked out what road
safety is. The cost to the country in lost livelyhoods
will be geater than the 7 deaths. Dont get me wrong
DRUNK driving is totally wrong and i have no problem
with locking up drunks, but this will effect the
average person out for dinner who is still medically
sober enough to drive. MONEY MONEY MONEY!!!
Dont even get me started on the 80k speed limit.The
latest stats proove that 45% of car accidents were due
to not giving way or stopping. so how is slowing down
gonna do any thing??? OH yes thats right i forgot
just another excuse to "rigoursly enforce" the new
speed limit and get some more cash.
AAAARRRRGGH when will they learn
Glenn "SLYDIT"
80kmh speed limit and lower alcohol limit
-
SLYDIT
- Keep calm, Forum Moderator here.
- Posts: 1610
- Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 6:18 pm
- Location: In the Garage.
80kmh speed limit and lower alcohol limit
RED '90 TURBO.
SCARING PRIUS DRIVERS SINCE 2002
SCARING PRIUS DRIVERS SINCE 2002
-
Eric West
80kmh speed limit and lower alcohol limit
Lou Giradin will no doubt remember a wise and capable instructor at the
Traffic Officer Training School, by the name of Ray Whatmough, who rose to
be Chief Traffic Superintendent.
Ray used to teach us "the theory of voluntary compliance" which says that
"good law" is that which 90% of people would comply with, whether the law
existed or not. The basis of this theory is that the vast majority of people
are not idiots and can work out what is good for them. In other words
"normal human behaviour".
Laws are usually made to control deviations from normal human behaviour,
outside of tolerances appropriate to the controlled activity, minor offences
receive a lot of tolerance, murder, hardly any.
It follows then, that the closer to the voluntary compliance level that you
set the tolerance, the more people you will catch. If you set the tolerance
below that level, you will catch everyone.
If you then apply this to a law which is politically difficult, through
common sense or propaganda, to argue against, such as speeding, (because
"speed kills" and "the faster you go the bigger the mess") then you have a
powerful tool to control the populace and a limitless source of income,
people have to drive and cannot avoid occasionally being caught,
particularly if you use covert detection methods. The closer you set the
tolerance, the more often they will be caught and the greater the revenue
stream.
There will also be a large conservative element of the population, who will
comply because they are told to or have developed level of zealotry and
will be vocal in support of the enforcement agencies, because they are
engaged by the propaganda.
This has nothing whatever to do with road safety of course, it is all about
revenue and control, but statistics such as those quoted by Glenn help to
persuade us that it is. Of course the statistics are always short of detail.
For instance, we do not know how many of these 7 people were actually
driving, they may even have been passengers being taken home by the
"designated driver"!
Our Government knows this principle well and also knows that once you have
won the first level of control, subsequent levels of control are
progressively easier to achieve.
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing!
Regards
Eric
Traffic Officer Training School, by the name of Ray Whatmough, who rose to
be Chief Traffic Superintendent.
Ray used to teach us "the theory of voluntary compliance" which says that
"good law" is that which 90% of people would comply with, whether the law
existed or not. The basis of this theory is that the vast majority of people
are not idiots and can work out what is good for them. In other words
"normal human behaviour".
Laws are usually made to control deviations from normal human behaviour,
outside of tolerances appropriate to the controlled activity, minor offences
receive a lot of tolerance, murder, hardly any.
It follows then, that the closer to the voluntary compliance level that you
set the tolerance, the more people you will catch. If you set the tolerance
below that level, you will catch everyone.
If you then apply this to a law which is politically difficult, through
common sense or propaganda, to argue against, such as speeding, (because
"speed kills" and "the faster you go the bigger the mess") then you have a
powerful tool to control the populace and a limitless source of income,
people have to drive and cannot avoid occasionally being caught,
particularly if you use covert detection methods. The closer you set the
tolerance, the more often they will be caught and the greater the revenue
stream.
There will also be a large conservative element of the population, who will
comply because they are told to or have developed level of zealotry and
will be vocal in support of the enforcement agencies, because they are
engaged by the propaganda.
This has nothing whatever to do with road safety of course, it is all about
revenue and control, but statistics such as those quoted by Glenn help to
persuade us that it is. Of course the statistics are always short of detail.
For instance, we do not know how many of these 7 people were actually
driving, they may even have been passengers being taken home by the
"designated driver"!
Our Government knows this principle well and also knows that once you have
won the first level of control, subsequent levels of control are
progressively easier to achieve.
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing!
Regards
Eric
-
Gary Morrison
- Need, more, 5-ing, time....
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 3:24 pm
- Location: Wellington
80kmh speed limit and lower alcohol limit
Brilliant, well written!
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 09:57:40 +1200, Eric West wrote:
Lou Giradin will no doubt remember a wise and capable instructor at the
Traffic Officer Training School, by the name of Ray Whatmough, who rose to
be Chief Traffic Superintendent.
Ray used to teach us "the theory of voluntary compliance" which says that
"good law" is that which 90% of people would comply with, whether the law
existed or not. The basis of this theory is that the vast majority of people
are not idiots and can work out what is good for them. In other words
"normal human behaviour".
Laws are usually made to control deviations from normal human behaviour,
outside of tolerances appropriate to the controlled activity, minor offences
receive a lot of tolerance, murder, hardly any.
It follows then, that the closer to the voluntary compliance level that you
set the tolerance, the more people you will catch. If you set the tolerance
below that level, you will catch everyone.
If you then apply this to a law which is politically difficult, through
common sense or propaganda, to argue against, such as speeding, (because
"speed kills" and "the faster you go the bigger the mess") then you have a
powerful tool to control the populace and a limitless source of income,
people have to drive and cannot avoid occasionally being caught,
particularly if you use covert detection methods. The closer you set the
tolerance, the more often they will be caught and the greater the revenue
stream.
There will also be a large conservative element of the population, who will
comply because they are told to or have developed level of zealotry and
will be vocal in support of the enforcement agencies, because they are
engaged by the propaganda.
This has nothing whatever to do with road safety of course, it is all about
revenue and control, but statistics such as those quoted by Glenn help to
persuade us that it is. Of course the statistics are always short of detail.
For instance, we do not know how many of these 7 people were actually
driving, they may even have been passengers being taken home by the
"designated driver"!
Our Government knows this principle well and also knows that once you have
won the first level of control, subsequent levels of control are
progressively easier to achieve.
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing!
Regards
Eric
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 09:57:40 +1200, Eric West wrote:
Lou Giradin will no doubt remember a wise and capable instructor at the
Traffic Officer Training School, by the name of Ray Whatmough, who rose to
be Chief Traffic Superintendent.
Ray used to teach us "the theory of voluntary compliance" which says that
"good law" is that which 90% of people would comply with, whether the law
existed or not. The basis of this theory is that the vast majority of people
are not idiots and can work out what is good for them. In other words
"normal human behaviour".
Laws are usually made to control deviations from normal human behaviour,
outside of tolerances appropriate to the controlled activity, minor offences
receive a lot of tolerance, murder, hardly any.
It follows then, that the closer to the voluntary compliance level that you
set the tolerance, the more people you will catch. If you set the tolerance
below that level, you will catch everyone.
If you then apply this to a law which is politically difficult, through
common sense or propaganda, to argue against, such as speeding, (because
"speed kills" and "the faster you go the bigger the mess") then you have a
powerful tool to control the populace and a limitless source of income,
people have to drive and cannot avoid occasionally being caught,
particularly if you use covert detection methods. The closer you set the
tolerance, the more often they will be caught and the greater the revenue
stream.
There will also be a large conservative element of the population, who will
comply because they are told to or have developed level of zealotry and
will be vocal in support of the enforcement agencies, because they are
engaged by the propaganda.
This has nothing whatever to do with road safety of course, it is all about
revenue and control, but statistics such as those quoted by Glenn help to
persuade us that it is. Of course the statistics are always short of detail.
For instance, we do not know how many of these 7 people were actually
driving, they may even have been passengers being taken home by the
"designated driver"!
Our Government knows this principle well and also knows that once you have
won the first level of control, subsequent levels of control are
progressively easier to achieve.
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing!
Regards
Eric
-
lou Girardin
80kmh speed limit and lower alcohol limit
When the speed limit was last at 80km/h, the road toll was the highest in
history. If enough people write to the papers and their MP's these proposals
will not happen, the Nat's are campaigning against them now.
The Police are so sensitive about the loss of public esteem, that they even
resort to personal replies to these letters seeking to convert us to their
one, true faith. As I've found out.
One proposal I heard, was that blood/alcohol levels between 50 and 80 will be
dealt with by an instant fine!
But it's not about revenue, no sir. It's saving lives!
Lou
history. If enough people write to the papers and their MP's these proposals
will not happen, the Nat's are campaigning against them now.
The Police are so sensitive about the loss of public esteem, that they even
resort to personal replies to these letters seeking to convert us to their
one, true faith. As I've found out.
One proposal I heard, was that blood/alcohol levels between 50 and 80 will be
dealt with by an instant fine!
But it's not about revenue, no sir. It's saving lives!
Lou
-
lou Girardin
80kmh speed limit and lower alcohol limit
Well said Eric, we had good teachers didn't we. To think, the public used to
think that we were tough!
The theory of compliance is what resulted in the repeal of prohibition in the
States
Lou
think that we were tough!
The theory of compliance is what resulted in the repeal of prohibition in the
States
Lou
-
Mike Pearson - WYSIWYG...
80kmh speed limit and lower alcohol limit
Hi, I don't see any draft legislation on the LTSA website, so where
does the rumour come from?
A similar new rule that has been published:
1. Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2003
http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/legislation/set ... ts-qa.html
Also worth noting is a new rule on vehicle exhaust emissions
http://www.transport.govt.nz/business/l ... ns_2003.sh
tml
Regards,
Mike - Wellington / Upper Hutt MX5 Club Co-ordinator
http://www.mx5club.org.nz/events/wellington/ - RSVP ANY EVENTS YOU WILL ATTEND
04-970-9709 (home), 021-631-731, (text/cell)
Wellington, NZ
does the rumour come from?
A similar new rule that has been published:
1. Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2003
http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/legislation/set ... ts-qa.html
Also worth noting is a new rule on vehicle exhaust emissions
http://www.transport.govt.nz/business/l ... ns_2003.sh
tml
Regards,
Mike - Wellington / Upper Hutt MX5 Club Co-ordinator
http://www.mx5club.org.nz/events/wellington/ - RSVP ANY EVENTS YOU WILL ATTEND
04-970-9709 (home), 021-631-731, (text/cell)
Wellington, NZ
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
