It's used extensively in the building industry to calculate how seismically resistant a building must be, or whether sprinkler systems etc will be required in a building.

Some of the changes made by Labour were just daft, in my view, and the extra travel time and loss of productivity did not justify the small increase in safety. There were also a number of roads such as the Napier-Taupo road, where Labour decided lowering the speed limit was a better option than making much needed safety improvements to the road, or even just maintaining the road.

I'm personally glad to see the blanket approach to speed limits being abandoned.

[–] flambonkscious@sh.itjust.works 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This is why I don't think central government should really get involved, as it becomes a political issue and loses nuance. This is a technical thing that we have experts for, you can guarantee they weren't involved in the 'policy' formation. They may be used or twisted to justify things, but it's the tail wagging the dog, really...

I totally agree about acceptable risk being one of those nuanced factors. NZTA used to deal with this all the time, from what I understand...

There are a couple of truths here that are being ignored or barely touched on:

most of our roads are trash (but they may not be what's being discussed, I'm not familiar with the examples used about or in the article), but it gets people thinking '~~meat~~speeds back on the menu boys!'
we're a nation of terrible drivers. I'm sure there are exceptions, but the tired and impatient risk-taking we routinely do in multi-ton machines is really bizarre

[–] Ilovethebomb 1 points 11 months ago

You're quite right, setting speed limits is something that should be done at arms length from the politicians.

[–] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Aren't there other benefits besides increased safety like decreased wear on the road and air and noise pollution?

[–] Ilovethebomb 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

There is indeed less fuel used, and therefore less pollution, when you slow vehicles down. This was tried back in the 70s, I think, with the oil price shocks and the 55mph speed limits in the USA. I think NZ did something similar.

[–] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago

Also pollution from things like brake pads and tire wear (one of the biggest sources of micro plastics)

[–] Viper_NZ 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

My issue is with their approach.

Napier - Taupō is a blanket reduction to 80kph. For much of the route this absolutely makes sense but there are stretches where it’s flat, wide and straight. Crawling along these parts are painful. Would it be that hard to change the limits for these sections?

Moving all of SH2 between Featherston and Masterton was equally maddening. Most of this road is wide, straight and with good visibility

They’ve reduced it to 80kph but left all the side roads 100 so all the locals are now careening down these roads at higher speed.

[–] Ilovethebomb 2 points 11 months ago

The number of signs I went past on Napier-taupo protesting the changes was quite surprising, it was pretty clear the locals were against the changes. Similar story with the Wairarapa, I assume.

I also managed to wheelspin, on the road, in an AWD vehicle, in second or third gear. The road surface was in appalling condition.