Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 85798	2007-12-22 06:25:00	Radar Detectors may be banned	radium (8645)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
623979	2007-12-24 01:45:00	pedestrians are at fault too - my dad nearly had an accident on a steep downhill where a girl on one side of the road called her dog on the other. of course the dog simply ran across the road and the car in the lead slammed it's brakes. the ute wasn't going to stop so (on the brakes) he swerved around the car. lucky the dog didn't get hit, much luckier there wasn't a huge nose to nail. if i was the lead car, considering the ute/heavy traffic behind and simply swerved, and if i hit the dog sent the girl the bill for a new bumper/headlight. seriously. then there's the ones who cross the road txting without looking (symonds st, 4 busy, fast moving lanes, directly above the symonds st underpass of course) - and the pedestrians who step out onto the road (not a crossing) and expect you to stop, then act all offended when you nearly hit them cause they didn't give you enough room to stop and you never even gave any indication of doing so:annoyed: (seriously, them standing for 2 seconds vs having a car emergency stop then start again for them - what would you do beyond having the brakes/swerve ready for such suicidal stupidity?) Driver is at fault not the pedestrian. You are supposed to be able to stop in half the clear distance ahead of you, if you can't then your probably travelling to fast for the particular conditions.	Bantu (52)
623980	2007-12-24 01:50:00	In NZ 101kph is speeding yet when I was last in the UK the open road limit was 70mph (approx 112 kph). Yet another example of the nanny state we live in. No don't ban radar detectors and no I don't own one. Freedom of choice. In any case, the coppers should be reading the riot act to all the morons running red lights all over the city. Furthermore, the traffic planners need to go back to school to work out how to get traffic moving. If we didn't have lights every 100 metres, if the lights were phased correctly, and they gave either free left turns or left turn arrows, you may see a lesser frustration with the number of red lights and the temptation to run them. I also agree with the earlier comments of 4WD drivers and red lights - apparently both are to be looked upon with derision. I stopped for an orange light the other day only to be overtaken by a truck and trailer on the wrong side of the road. IMO morons like that truck driver need to be removed from the gene pool without taking anyone else with them. What a brilliant mind you have And,thinks the same as mine!	Cicero (40)
623981	2007-12-24 01:51:00	Driver is at fault not the pedestrian. You are supposed to be able to stop in half the clear distance ahead of you, if you can't then your probably travelling to fast for the particular conditions. So lets say I am following the three-second rule on the motorway, with some leeway, say four seconds. You think I should be able to slow down from 100 kph to naught in 2 seconds? :horrified	ubergeek85 (131)
623982	2007-12-24 02:11:00	So lets say I am following the three-second rule on the motorway, with some leeway, say four seconds . You think I should be able to slow down from 100 kph to naught in 2 seconds? :horrified 3 second rule is only a guideline it is not law . "It's very important to make sure you have a safe distance between you and the vehicle in front, so you will have enough time to stop if you need to stop suddenly . You can drive at any speed under or equal to the limit, provided: your speed is safe for the traffic conditions (for example, slow down if you are on a busy road, or if there are pedestrians or cyclists around) your speed is safe for the road conditions (for example, slow down if the road is winding, bumpy, narrow, wet or icy) your speed is safe for the weather conditions (for example, slow down if it is raining, windy or foggy) you can stop suddenly behind a vehicle that you’re following – if a vehicle ahead of you stops suddenly and you run into the back of it, you will be legally responsible you can stop in half the length of clear road you can see in front of you on a road with no centre line or lanes (for example, a narrow country road where vehicles may meet head-on) you can stop in the length of clear lane you can see in front of you on a road with a centre line or lanes . "	Bantu (52)
623983	2007-12-24 02:14:00	True, but the government made it three seconds because they thought that it was far enough for people to stop. And,people shouldn't be idiots around cars traveling at 100kph.	ubergeek85 (131)
623984	2007-12-24 03:01:00	Can the speed cameras catch people on either side of the road? If they can, you would only be able to speed in one direction. sadly that is the case, though i've heard of one that can't reach all 5 lanes of the road it's on If they made the punishment more appropriate then no, they would not drive without a license. Parts of Europe depending on the speed, your license as well as your vehicle can be confiscated for exceeding the speed limit let alone no license. yes a lot would be deterred by a harsher penalty, but for many it is simply a matter of a "i just won't get caught" mentality it is not the penalty that prevents a crime, but the absolute certainity of being caught and made to face the penalty You deserve the ticket. The crash was just you being careless, sorry but it's a fact, you need to concentrate when driving at any speed. i know i legally deserve the ticket for speeding, just it's ironic that my one crash so far has not been speeding but innattention at "safe" speed Driver is at fault not the pedestrian. You are supposed to be able to stop in half the clear distance ahead of you, if you can't then your probably travelling to fast for the particular conditions. so you mean to say that if a pedestrian walks out in front of you on a road at such a time that there is not going to be a way for you to safely stop that it's your fault? there was approximately a whole 200m clear in that situation, so stopping in half that distance was no problem. them being impatient and walking out despite me not having slowed down to stop for them was the problem. if you were a pedestrian not using a marked crossing would you expect a car to perform an emergency stop just for you to cross the road or wait the maximum of 2 seconds for the car to pass? i might add that the person was txting, not looking at the traffic at all (just walked out looking at the phone) and was directly above a pedestrian underpass oddly enough, if i was doing 70kph or otherwise speeding it would legally be my fault despite them still crossing before i had come to a stop (or even started to slow down).	motorbyclist (188)
623985	2007-12-24 03:55:00	next to ban is cellphones.	Nomad (952)
623986	2007-12-24 04:02:00	Don't have a car, don't want one, drive one 2x in the w'ends. If I do its a 4 door 1992, 1.3L car borrowed off someone. We have a city suburb carpark permit but have never used it. Been driving over 10yrs. Not one fine, not one pull over, not one demerit point. Not one parking fine. Even w'ends if I am going out for the night or a few hours I catch the bus. Since I ever worked in the city, I have never in my life drove out. I don't like driving - too much idiots on the road so I react. However I don't speed and if they come right up your bumper, I don't care and I may gradually slow the car down to piss them off even more. I may get behind a slow car so then it make it even harder for them to overtake more than one cars at a single go. If a car is on the right land slowly, you be on the left lane so there is no gap for them to squeeze via. I love it, when you do like 95 or 98k on the motorway and there's a hidden camera van on the side, they overtake you and gets snapped, they brake and see its too late and then continues speeding away .. I say bring on the road tolls, bring on central city ban of road vehicles except commercial vehicles, bring on a underground rail system.	Nomad (952)
623987	2007-12-24 04:25:00	Speed isn't the issue, Its morons pulling moronic stunts, Some of these cunning stunts are speeding. In the event that all cars were speed limited to 105km an hour, we would still have morons doing moronic stunts, stunts that killed them and innocent people. The answer is not in a revenue gathering system that is more concerned with keeping as many revenue targets on the road as possible. Hell, There is so much legislation in place at the moment that is ignored, And it could be used to save a few lives, gets a few morons off the road. Jailing people for fines rather then wiping them would be a good start.	Metla (12)
623988	2007-12-24 04:30:00	Don't have a car, don't want one, drive one 2x in the w'ends. ..... I say bring on the road tolls, bring on central city ban of road vehicles except commercial vehicles, bring on a underground rail system. well of course if you live and work in the city you'd say that but road users already pay for roads through petrol tax etc many people who have to commute into the city (cheaper than paying extra to live in the city, and it's cheaper than the bus) need their own transport as public transport is still so bloody useless for a large portion of the population, partly due to the size and spread of the auckland region. underground rail would be brilliant if we could build it in auckland and it wasn't so expensive but you're right there does need to be a reduction in the number of cars that don't need to be in the city. improving public transport is currently the only viable way help this, alongside carpooling, cycling and motorcycling/scootering maybe they should have an IQ test to get/hold a licence... i bet that'd fix conjestion AND the road toll:lol:	motorbyclist (188)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14