Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

People will die as a direct result of these changes


What number of road deaths is acceptable to you?
 

NZWarriors.com

Democracy mate, the locals polled overwhelmingly support reverting back to the higher speeds that were removed without their input.

“The majority of feedback received from the community and road users was not in support of retaining the lower speed of 80km/h for this route, with 61% in favour of the speed reverting to 100km/h.”

Labour got voted out because of communist stuff like this. Shower head 2 moment when brand new motorways engineered for 110kmh are set to 100… just because.

If you can’t any handle risk, stick to public transport.

There is no public transport. The road lobbies and the far right government have shut it down
 
Ask Wiz that. It's pure ignorance and pandering to the rednecks.
If 10,000,000 vehicle trips use a road a year, waste 10 minutes of their life after reducing the speed by 20% then the accumulative lose of time is 100 million minutes. This equates to 3 life times opportunity cost lost (at the average lifespan) that the lower speed limits ‘loses’ and is an unseen safer road, hidden road toll.

Ie for the above road you could have a higher speed limit and have 3 road toll deaths per year and still come out with savings in lifetimes over lower speed limits.

You don’t cares about millions of 10 minutes but everyone notices a fatal death. But they are equally important.

The opportunity cost of safety is sometimes more than the benefit saved. And we all make those calculations on a micro level every time we chose to drive.

I say the community can make their own decisions, not the govt in regards what is safe and acceptable risk. And the community has spoken.

Feel free to drive at the old ‘safer’ speed limits - there’s nothing stopping you. My grandma does it all the time 😉

If you are really worried about safety, ban push bikes - they have the highest death rate per km travelled.
 
If 10,000,000 vehicle trips use a road a year, waste 10 minutes of their life after reducing the speed by 20% then the accumulative lose of time is 100 million minutes. This equates to 3 life times opportunity cost lost (at the average lifespan) that the lower speed limits ‘loses’ and is an unseen safer road, hidden road toll.

Ie for the above road you could have a higher speed limit and have 3 road toll deaths per year and still come out with savings in lifetimes over lower speed limits.

You don’t cares about millions of 10 minutes but everyone notices a fatal death. But they are equally important.

The opportunity cost of safety is sometimes more than the benefit saved. And we all make those calculations on a micro level every time we chose to drive.

I say the community can make their own decisions, not the govt in regards what is safe and acceptable risk. And the community has spoken.

Feel free to drive at the old ‘safer’ speed limits - there’s nothing stopping you. My grandma does it all the time 😉

If you are really worried about safety, ban push bikes - they have the highest death rate per km travelled.
An essay on the theoretical rather than the reality
 
An essay on the theoretical rather than the reality
Reality is over half the fatal accidents are caused by alcohol and/or drugs.

Most accidents are caused by poor attention rather than speed, which only limits the damage rather than being a root cause.

We’re having to slow everyone down so a few drugged out idiots don’t kill themselves…

 
Reality is over half the fatal accidents are caused by alcohol and/or drugs.

Most accidents are caused by poor attention rather than speed, which only limits the damage rather than being a root cause.

We’re having to slow everyone down so a few drugged out idiots don’t kill themselves…


Imaginative argument, you come up with some real black is white shit there.

Bro, three things kill people, you do not have to straw man them to try make three into two....maths ehoa maths.
 
The best thing to do if you meet or see a conspiracist is to give them a wide berth. Not even worth acknowledging them

And when you cannot avoid them (like if they are family members like my family) then you should not try to argue with them.

Mental health training teaches you not to argue with people who have delusions. By arguing with them you are attacking them.
Attacking their personal sense of identity and safety, and causing them harm.

On the other hand you should not actively agree with them because that is also dangerous.

You are quite right about avoiding where possible, and if you cannot, be supportive without agreeing or disagreeing.
 
Last edited:
Most accidents are caused by poor attention rather than speed, which only limits the damage rather than being a root cause.

We’re having to slow everyone down so a few drugged out idiots don’t kill themselves…
They're killing our kids too though. I don't know the answer to the root cause, drugs & drunk driving, poor attention, but limiting the damage seems sensible enough?
 
    Nobody is reading this thread right now.
Back
Top Bottom