https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350310208/speed-limits-120kmh-proposed-government-looks-scrap-other-reductions
In this instance the Minster of transport and Leader of ACT have nailed it.
They are saying what I am hearing from people I have conversations with.
They are consulting with the people. The non targeted approach of blanket >rules from the Labour Government are allows an increase in a disregard for >the law.
"Blanket restrictions forced on communities from Wellington didn't just
make it harder for people to get where they wanted quickly and safely,
they drained the joy from life as people were forced to follow rules
they knew made no sense," Regulation Minister David Seymour said."
"Worse still, people ignore rules that don't make sense and once the
habit forms, they ignore rules that do make sense. Sensible lawmaking
is important for respecting the rule of law."
"The speed limit changes are out for public consultation." This is a case of >if one agrees one should make a submission, to keep things balanced.
Woke nil, common sense 1.
It is a good idea to slow down around schools during dro off and pick up >times but no need for the rest of the day and days school is not in.
On 13 Jun 2024 09:17:14 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:Bullshit.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350310208/speed-limits-120kmh-proposed-government-looks-scrap-other-reductionsIt remains to be seen whether consultation is, as we have seen in
In this instance the Minster of transport and Leader of ACT have nailed it. >>
They are saying what I am hearing from people I have conversations with.
They are consulting with the people. The non targeted approach of blanket >>rules from the Labour Government are allows an increase in a disregard for >>the law.
"Blanket restrictions forced on communities from Wellington didn't just >>make it harder for people to get where they wanted quickly and safely,
they drained the joy from life as people were forced to follow rules
they knew made no sense," Regulation Minister David Seymour said."
"Worse still, people ignore rules that don't make sense and once the
habit forms, they ignore rules that do make sense. Sensible lawmaking
is important for respecting the rule of law."
"The speed limit changes are out for public consultation." This is a case of >>if one agrees one should make a submission, to keep things balanced.
Woke nil, common sense 1.
It is a good idea to slow down around schools during dro off and pick up >>times but no need for the rest of the day and days school is not in.
other areas, just a way of "freedumb-washing" opinions - "you are free
to tell us anything you like, but we ultimately have to make a
decision and we have already decided what those will be." In many
areas local people would prefer the roads to be safe before limits are >raised. Decisions within local authority boundaries should be left to
the local Council - that deals adequately with the issue of schools,
but ActNat1st have shown that they are prepared to override local
authorities which is of course whenever David Seymour "knows" that He
can make better decisions from his Wellington Office - "Right,"
Gordon?
In this instance the Minster of transport and Leader of ACT have nailed it.Yes - a promise made before the election now being carried out as required by the electors. Nice to see democracy in action.
They are saying what I am hearing from people I have conversations with.
They are consulting with the people. The non targeted approach of blanket >rules from the Labour Government are allows an increase in a disregard for >the law.
"Blanket restrictions forced on communities from Wellington didn't just
make it harder for people to get where they wanted quickly and safely,
they drained the joy from life as people were forced to follow rules
they knew made no sense," Regulation Minister David Seymour said."
"Worse still, people ignore rules that don't make sense and once the
habit forms, they ignore rules that do make sense. Sensible lawmaking
is important for respecting the rule of law."
"The speed limit changes are out for public consultation." This is a case of >if one agrees one should make a submission, to keep things balanced.
Woke nil, common sense 1.
It is a good idea to slow down around schools during dro off and pick up >times but no need for the rest of the day and days school is not in.
On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 20:49:41 -0000 (UTC), TonyYes and you know it. they mandated 24 hour 30kmph outside some schools.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:Can you identify anywhere that the previous government overruled local >authorities?
On 13 Jun 2024 09:17:14 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:Bullshit.
It remains to be seen whether consultation is, as we have seen inhttps://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350310208/speed-limits-120kmh-proposed-government-looks-scrap-other-reductions
In this instance the Minster of transport and Leader of ACT have nailed it. >>>>
They are saying what I am hearing from people I have conversations with. >>>>
They are consulting with the people. The non targeted approach of blanket >>>>rules from the Labour Government are allows an increase in a disregard for >>>>the law.
"Blanket restrictions forced on communities from Wellington didn't just >>>>make it harder for people to get where they wanted quickly and safely, >>>>they drained the joy from life as people were forced to follow rules >>>>they knew made no sense," Regulation Minister David Seymour said."
"Worse still, people ignore rules that don't make sense and once the >>>>habit forms, they ignore rules that do make sense. Sensible lawmaking >>>>is important for respecting the rule of law."
"The speed limit changes are out for public consultation." This is a case of
if one agrees one should make a submission, to keep things balanced.
Woke nil, common sense 1.
It is a good idea to slow down around schools during dro off and pick up >>>>times but no need for the rest of the day and days school is not in.
other areas, just a way of "freedumb-washing" opinions - "you are free
to tell us anything you like, but we ultimately have to make a
decision and we have already decided what those will be." In many
areas local people would prefer the roads to be safe before limits are >>>raised. Decisions within local authority boundaries should be left to
the local Council - that deals adequately with the issue of schools,
but ActNat1st have shown that they are prepared to override local >>>authorities which is of course whenever David Seymour "knows" that He
can make better decisions from his Wellington Office - "Right,"
Gordon?
It was Labour that overruled local authorities and this government is >>correcting that piece of foolishness.
establishing entities that could undertake the work needed to ensureOff topic.
we have adequate clean water at the cheapest possible price - NACT1st
have told Councils that they will get no help from this Government and
are on their own - paying higher interest rates to overseas banks than
would have been arranged under government borrowing. What percentage
increase in rates will your Council impose to achieve that, Tony? And
which banks are going to benefit from the higher interest rates?
The reality is that local Councils have limits on borrowing, and
borrowing by local authorities is more expensive that borrowing by
central government - but what particularly appeals to National, ACT
and NZ First, and their advisers the NZ Initiative and the NZ Taxpayer
Union, is to move costs from income tax to rates - that is a political
move to flatten taxes to the benefit of the wealthy backers of those
parties and organisations. They know that some Councils cannot fix
their water problems - they do not have enough ratepayers to pay
enough, so they have mooted lowering water standards - of course only
on a temporary basis, but certainly for as long as they can stay in >government.
The underlying policy in that move towards rates paying for more is ofSarcastic abuse gone.
course that it flattens the tax base - better to get people to pay
through rates and rents than raising more through income tax . . .
Your rhetoric knows no bounds.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13 Jun 2024 09:17:14 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
Bullshit.https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350310208/speed-limits-120kmh-proposed-government-looks-scrap-other-reductionsIt remains to be seen whether consultation is, as we have seen in
In this instance the Minster of transport and Leader of ACT have nailed it. >>
They are saying what I am hearing from people I have conversations with.
They are consulting with the people. The non targeted approach of blanket >>rules from the Labour Government are allows an increase in a disregard for >>the law.
"Blanket restrictions forced on communities from Wellington didn't just >>make it harder for people to get where they wanted quickly and safely, >>they drained the joy from life as people were forced to follow rules
they knew made no sense," Regulation Minister David Seymour said."
"Worse still, people ignore rules that don't make sense and once the >>habit forms, they ignore rules that do make sense. Sensible lawmaking
is important for respecting the rule of law."
"The speed limit changes are out for public consultation." This is a case of
if one agrees one should make a submission, to keep things balanced.
Woke nil, common sense 1.
It is a good idea to slow down around schools during dro off and pick up >>times but no need for the rest of the day and days school is not in.
other areas, just a way of "freedumb-washing" opinions - "you are free
to tell us anything you like, but we ultimately have to make a
decision and we have already decided what those will be." In many
areas local people would prefer the roads to be safe before limits are >raised. Decisions within local authority boundaries should be left to
the local Council - that deals adequately with the issue of schools,
but ActNat1st have shown that they are prepared to override local >authorities which is of course whenever David Seymour "knows" that He
can make better decisions from his Wellington Office - "Right,"
Gordon?
It was Labour that overruled local authorities and this government is correcting that piece of foolishness.
Your rhetoric knows no bounds.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:Can you identify anywhere that the previous government overruled local authorities? They did work with local authorities with the aim of
On 13 Jun 2024 09:17:14 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:Bullshit.
It remains to be seen whether consultation is, as we have seen inhttps://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350310208/speed-limits-120kmh-proposed-government-looks-scrap-other-reductions
In this instance the Minster of transport and Leader of ACT have nailed it. >>>
They are saying what I am hearing from people I have conversations with.
They are consulting with the people. The non targeted approach of blanket >>>rules from the Labour Government are allows an increase in a disregard for >>>the law.
"Blanket restrictions forced on communities from Wellington didn't just >>>make it harder for people to get where they wanted quickly and safely, >>>they drained the joy from life as people were forced to follow rules
they knew made no sense," Regulation Minister David Seymour said."
"Worse still, people ignore rules that don't make sense and once the >>>habit forms, they ignore rules that do make sense. Sensible lawmaking
is important for respecting the rule of law."
"The speed limit changes are out for public consultation." This is a case of >>>if one agrees one should make a submission, to keep things balanced.
Woke nil, common sense 1.
It is a good idea to slow down around schools during dro off and pick up >>>times but no need for the rest of the day and days school is not in.
other areas, just a way of "freedumb-washing" opinions - "you are free
to tell us anything you like, but we ultimately have to make a
decision and we have already decided what those will be." In many
areas local people would prefer the roads to be safe before limits are >>raised. Decisions within local authority boundaries should be left to
the local Council - that deals adequately with the issue of schools,
but ActNat1st have shown that they are prepared to override local >>authorities which is of course whenever David Seymour "knows" that He
can make better decisions from his Wellington Office - "Right,"
Gordon?
It was Labour that overruled local authorities and this government is >correcting that piece of foolishness.
Your rhetoric knows no bounds.Thank you for the compliment, Tony I am glad you appreciate my posts,
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]OK but that does not refute my argument. The last government did mandate some changes, and that is what I said.
says...
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13 Jun 2024 09:17:14 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:Bullshit.
It remains to be seen whether consultation is, as we have seen inhttps://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350310208/speed-limits-120kmh-proposed-government-looks-scrap-other-reductions
In this instance the Minster of transport and Leader of ACT have nailed it.
They are saying what I am hearing from people I have conversations with. >> >>
They are consulting with the people. The non targeted approach of blanket >> >>rules from the Labour Government are allows an increase in a disregard for >> >>the law.
"Blanket restrictions forced on communities from Wellington didn't just
make it harder for people to get where they wanted quickly and safely,
they drained the joy from life as people were forced to follow rules
they knew made no sense," Regulation Minister David Seymour said."
"Worse still, people ignore rules that don't make sense and once the
habit forms, they ignore rules that do make sense. Sensible lawmaking
is important for respecting the rule of law."
"The speed limit changes are out for public consultation." This is a case >> >>of
if one agrees one should make a submission, to keep things balanced.
Woke nil, common sense 1.
It is a good idea to slow down around schools during dro off and pick up >> >>times but no need for the rest of the day and days school is not in.
other areas, just a way of "freedumb-washing" opinions - "you are free
to tell us anything you like, but we ultimately have to make a
decision and we have already decided what those will be." In many
areas local people would prefer the roads to be safe before limits are
raised. Decisions within local authority boundaries should be left to
the local Council - that deals adequately with the issue of schools,
but ActNat1st have shown that they are prepared to override local
authorities which is of course whenever David Seymour "knows" that He
can make better decisions from his Wellington Office - "Right,"
Gordon?
It was Labour that overruled local authorities and this government is
correcting that piece of foolishness.
Your rhetoric knows no bounds.
Some local authorities were setting lower speed limits in various zones >(residential streets, CBD, etc) completely on their own before the
previous government was pushing it simply because there are good reasons
to do this.
For example, in 2012 under the previous National government Hamilton
started lowering speed limits in residential areas to 40km/h. I don't >remember when speeds were reduced in the CBD but it feels like quite a
while ago too.
Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: >>https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350310208/speed-limits-120kmh-proposed-government-looks-scrap-other-reductions
Yes - a promise made before the election now being carried out as required by >the electors. Nice to see democracy in action.
In this instance the Minster of transport and Leader of ACT have nailed it. >>
They are saying what I am hearing from people I have conversations with.
They are consulting with the people. The non targeted approach of blanket >>rules from the Labour Government are allows an increase in a disregard for >>the law.
"Blanket restrictions forced on communities from Wellington didn't just >>make it harder for people to get where they wanted quickly and safely,
they drained the joy from life as people were forced to follow rules
they knew made no sense," Regulation Minister David Seymour said."
"Worse still, people ignore rules that don't make sense and once the
habit forms, they ignore rules that do make sense. Sensible lawmaking
is important for respecting the rule of law."
"The speed limit changes are out for public consultation." This is a case of >>if one agrees one should make a submission, to keep things balanced.
Woke nil, common sense 1.
It is a good idea to slow down around schools during dro off and pick up >>times but no need for the rest of the day and days school is not in.
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >says...
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13 Jun 2024 09:17:14 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:Bullshit.
It remains to be seen whether consultation is, as we have seen inhttps://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350310208/speed-limits-120kmh-proposed-government-looks-scrap-other-reductions
In this instance the Minster of transport and Leader of ACT have nailed it.
They are saying what I am hearing from people I have conversations with. >> >>
They are consulting with the people. The non targeted approach of blanket
rules from the Labour Government are allows an increase in a disregard for
the law.
"Blanket restrictions forced on communities from Wellington didn't just >> >>make it harder for people to get where they wanted quickly and safely, >> >>they drained the joy from life as people were forced to follow rules
they knew made no sense," Regulation Minister David Seymour said."
"Worse still, people ignore rules that don't make sense and once the
habit forms, they ignore rules that do make sense. Sensible lawmaking
is important for respecting the rule of law."
"The speed limit changes are out for public consultation." This is a case
of
if one agrees one should make a submission, to keep things balanced.
Woke nil, common sense 1.
It is a good idea to slow down around schools during dro off and pick up >> >>times but no need for the rest of the day and days school is not in.
other areas, just a way of "freedumb-washing" opinions - "you are free
to tell us anything you like, but we ultimately have to make a
decision and we have already decided what those will be." In many
areas local people would prefer the roads to be safe before limits are
raised. Decisions within local authority boundaries should be left to
the local Council - that deals adequately with the issue of schools,
but ActNat1st have shown that they are prepared to override local
authorities which is of course whenever David Seymour "knows" that He
can make better decisions from his Wellington Office - "Right,"
Gordon?
It was Labour that overruled local authorities and this government is
correcting that piece of foolishness.
Your rhetoric knows no bounds.
Some local authorities were setting lower speed limits in various zones >(residential streets, CBD, etc) completely on their own before the
previous government was pushing it simply because there are good reasons
to do this.
For example, in 2012 under the previous National government Hamilton >started lowering speed limits in residential areas to 40km/h. I don't >remember when speeds were reduced in the CBD but it feels like quite a >while ago too.OK but that does not refute my argument. The last government did mandate some changes, and that is what I said.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]OK but that does not refute my argument. The last government did mandate some
says...
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13 Jun 2024 09:17:14 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:Bullshit.
It remains to be seen whether consultation is, as we have seen inhttps://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350310208/speed-limits-120kmh-proposed-government-looks-scrap-other-reductions
In this instance the Minster of transport and Leader of ACT have nailed it.
They are saying what I am hearing from people I have conversations with.
They are consulting with the people. The non targeted approach of blanket
rules from the Labour Government are allows an increase in a disregard for
the law.
"Blanket restrictions forced on communities from Wellington didn't just >> >> >>make it harder for people to get where they wanted quickly and safely, >> >> >>they drained the joy from life as people were forced to follow rules
they knew made no sense," Regulation Minister David Seymour said."
"Worse still, people ignore rules that don't make sense and once the
habit forms, they ignore rules that do make sense. Sensible lawmaking >> >> >>is important for respecting the rule of law."
"The speed limit changes are out for public consultation." This is a case
of
if one agrees one should make a submission, to keep things balanced.
Woke nil, common sense 1.
It is a good idea to slow down around schools during dro off and pick up
times but no need for the rest of the day and days school is not in.
other areas, just a way of "freedumb-washing" opinions - "you are free >> >> >to tell us anything you like, but we ultimately have to make a
decision and we have already decided what those will be." In many
areas local people would prefer the roads to be safe before limits are >> >> >raised. Decisions within local authority boundaries should be left to
the local Council - that deals adequately with the issue of schools,
but ActNat1st have shown that they are prepared to override local
authorities which is of course whenever David Seymour "knows" that He
can make better decisions from his Wellington Office - "Right,"
Gordon?
It was Labour that overruled local authorities and this government is
correcting that piece of foolishness.
Your rhetoric knows no bounds.
Some local authorities were setting lower speed limits in various zones
(residential streets, CBD, etc) completely on their own before the
previous government was pushing it simply because there are good reasons
to do this.
For example, in 2012 under the previous National government Hamilton
started lowering speed limits in residential areas to 40km/h. I don't
remember when speeds were reduced in the CBD but it feels like quite a
while ago too.
changes, and that is what I said.
Going back to what Rich was saying, that you responded to, it would
appear that National intends to undo those locally chosen lower speed
limits in addition to the previous governments mandated lower speed
limits.
As a recent example, Tauranga City Council wishes to lower speeds in
some areas - a local choice not mandated by the previous government.
Simeon Brown came out saying the Government did not support this and the >Governments new speed limit rules could reverse the local authority's
choice. I believe Tauranga intends to push on regardless and it remains
to be seen if the Government will follow through on their threat to
mandate changes.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]Does it? I have not seen proof of that.
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]OK but that does not refute my argument. The last government did mandate >>some
says...
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13 Jun 2024 09:17:14 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
Bullshit.It remains to be seen whether consultation is, as we have seen inhttps://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350310208/speed-limits-120kmh-proposed-government-looks-scrap-other-reductions
In this instance the Minster of transport and Leader of ACT have nailed >> >> >>it.
They are saying what I am hearing from people I have conversations with.
They are consulting with the people. The non targeted approach of
blanket
rules from the Labour Government are allows an increase in a disregard >> >> >>for
the law.
"Blanket restrictions forced on communities from Wellington didn't just >> >> >>make it harder for people to get where they wanted quickly and safely, >> >> >>they drained the joy from life as people were forced to follow rules
they knew made no sense," Regulation Minister David Seymour said."
"Worse still, people ignore rules that don't make sense and once the
habit forms, they ignore rules that do make sense. Sensible lawmaking >> >> >>is important for respecting the rule of law."
"The speed limit changes are out for public consultation." This is a
case
of
if one agrees one should make a submission, to keep things balanced.
Woke nil, common sense 1.
It is a good idea to slow down around schools during dro off and pick up
times but no need for the rest of the day and days school is not in.
other areas, just a way of "freedumb-washing" opinions - "you are free >> >> >to tell us anything you like, but we ultimately have to make a
decision and we have already decided what those will be." In many
areas local people would prefer the roads to be safe before limits are >> >> >raised. Decisions within local authority boundaries should be left to
the local Council - that deals adequately with the issue of schools,
but ActNat1st have shown that they are prepared to override local
authorities which is of course whenever David Seymour "knows" that He
can make better decisions from his Wellington Office - "Right,"
Gordon?
It was Labour that overruled local authorities and this government is
correcting that piece of foolishness.
Your rhetoric knows no bounds.
Some local authorities were setting lower speed limits in various zones
(residential streets, CBD, etc) completely on their own before the
previous government was pushing it simply because there are good reasons
to do this.
For example, in 2012 under the previous National government Hamilton
started lowering speed limits in residential areas to 40km/h. I don't
remember when speeds were reduced in the CBD but it feels like quite a
while ago too.
changes, and that is what I said.
Going back to what Rich was saying, that you responded to, it would
appear that National intends to undo those locally chosen lower speed
limits in addition to the previous governments mandated lower speed
limits.
As a recent example, Tauranga City Council wishes to lower speeds inMaybe so, however you appear to be opposed to this government mandatting speed limits so presumably you were opposed to the last government doing the same thing (regardless of whether the mandate was increasing or reducing speeds).
some areas - a local choice not mandated by the previous government.
Simeon Brown came out saying the Government did not support this and the >Governments new speed limit rules could reverse the local authority's
choice. I believe Tauranga intends to push on regardless and it remains
to be seen if the Government will follow through on their threat to
mandate changes.
On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 11:53:22 +1200, David GoodwinFirstly one example is trivial and unhelpful. Secondly I don't think the government is going to make local councils remove a restriction, I didn't say they would and you are just being deliberately obtuse in suggesting that they are. What they are doing is removing the compulsory rules set by the previous government. All else is rhetoric and you know it.
<[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]OK but that does not refute my argument. The last government did mandate >>>some
says...
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13 Jun 2024 09:17:14 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
Bullshit.It remains to be seen whether consultation is, as we have seen inhttps://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350310208/speed-limits-120kmh-proposed-government-looks-scrap-other-reductions
In this instance the Minster of transport and Leader of ACT have
nailed it.
They are saying what I am hearing from people I have conversations
with.
They are consulting with the people. The non targeted approach of
blanket
rules from the Labour Government are allows an increase in a disregard >>> >> >>for
the law.
"Blanket restrictions forced on communities from Wellington didn't
just
make it harder for people to get where they wanted quickly and safely, >>> >> >>they drained the joy from life as people were forced to follow rules >>> >> >>they knew made no sense," Regulation Minister David Seymour said."
"Worse still, people ignore rules that don't make sense and once the >>> >> >>habit forms, they ignore rules that do make sense. Sensible lawmaking >>> >> >>is important for respecting the rule of law."
"The speed limit changes are out for public consultation." This is a >>> >> >>case
of
if one agrees one should make a submission, to keep things balanced. >>> >> >>
Woke nil, common sense 1.
It is a good idea to slow down around schools during dro off and pick >>> >> >>up
times but no need for the rest of the day and days school is not in. >>> >> >>
other areas, just a way of "freedumb-washing" opinions - "you are free >>> >> >to tell us anything you like, but we ultimately have to make a
decision and we have already decided what those will be." In many
areas local people would prefer the roads to be safe before limits are >>> >> >raised. Decisions within local authority boundaries should be left to >>> >> >the local Council - that deals adequately with the issue of schools, >>> >> >but ActNat1st have shown that they are prepared to override local
authorities which is of course whenever David Seymour "knows" that He >>> >> >can make better decisions from his Wellington Office - "Right,"
Gordon?
It was Labour that overruled local authorities and this government is >>> >> correcting that piece of foolishness.
Your rhetoric knows no bounds.
Some local authorities were setting lower speed limits in various zones >>> >(residential streets, CBD, etc) completely on their own before the
previous government was pushing it simply because there are good reasons >>> >to do this.
For example, in 2012 under the previous National government Hamilton
started lowering speed limits in residential areas to 40km/h. I don't
remember when speeds were reduced in the CBD but it feels like quite a
while ago too.
changes, and that is what I said.
Going back to what Rich was saying, that you responded to, it would
appear that National intends to undo those locally chosen lower speed >>limits in addition to the previous governments mandated lower speed
limits.
As a recent example, Tauranga City Council wishes to lower speeds in
some areas - a local choice not mandated by the previous government.
Simeon Brown came out saying the Government did not support this and the >>Governments new speed limit rules could reverse the local authority's >>choice. I believe Tauranga intends to push on regardless and it remains
to be seen if the Government will follow through on their threat to
mandate changes.
Worth reading this: >https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/resources/rules/docs/Setting-of-Speed-Limits-Rule-2022-as-at-15-December-2023.pdf
and >https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/resources/rules/docs/Setting-of-Speed-Limits-Amendment-2023.pdf
and for earlier rules: >https://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/?category=59&subcategory=87&term=
I know that in my local area the speed limit was reduced by the local
council to 30kph from 50kph, for a local shopping area and primary
school, a distance of about 500 metres. There was consultation with >householders in the local area before a decision was made; the lower
speed limit has assisted local shops as it is now easier to park and
to get out of a park, it is safer for pedestrians to cross the road,
and it is safer for school children. There have been fewer accidents
and the new limit has been welcomed by residents. Local businesses
would not want the government to remove the current limit.
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]OK but that does not refute my argument. The last government did mandate >>some
says...
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13 Jun 2024 09:17:14 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
Bullshit.It remains to be seen whether consultation is, as we have seen inhttps://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350310208/speed-limits-120kmh-proposed-government-looks-scrap-other-reductions
In this instance the Minster of transport and Leader of ACT have nailed
it.
They are saying what I am hearing from people I have conversations with.
They are consulting with the people. The non targeted approach of
blanket
rules from the Labour Government are allows an increase in a disregard
for
the law.
"Blanket restrictions forced on communities from Wellington didn't just
make it harder for people to get where they wanted quickly and safely,
they drained the joy from life as people were forced to follow rules >> >> >>they knew made no sense," Regulation Minister David Seymour said."
"Worse still, people ignore rules that don't make sense and once the >> >> >>habit forms, they ignore rules that do make sense. Sensible lawmaking >> >> >>is important for respecting the rule of law."
"The speed limit changes are out for public consultation." This is a >> >> >>case
of
if one agrees one should make a submission, to keep things balanced. >> >> >>
Woke nil, common sense 1.
It is a good idea to slow down around schools during dro off and pick up
times but no need for the rest of the day and days school is not in. >> >> >>
other areas, just a way of "freedumb-washing" opinions - "you are free >> >> >to tell us anything you like, but we ultimately have to make a
decision and we have already decided what those will be." In many
areas local people would prefer the roads to be safe before limits are >> >> >raised. Decisions within local authority boundaries should be left to >> >> >the local Council - that deals adequately with the issue of schools, >> >> >but ActNat1st have shown that they are prepared to override local
authorities which is of course whenever David Seymour "knows" that He >> >> >can make better decisions from his Wellington Office - "Right,"
Gordon?
It was Labour that overruled local authorities and this government is >> >> correcting that piece of foolishness.
Your rhetoric knows no bounds.
Some local authorities were setting lower speed limits in various zones >> >(residential streets, CBD, etc) completely on their own before the
previous government was pushing it simply because there are good reasons >> >to do this.
For example, in 2012 under the previous National government Hamilton
started lowering speed limits in residential areas to 40km/h. I don't
remember when speeds were reduced in the CBD but it feels like quite a
while ago too.
changes, and that is what I said.
Going back to what Rich was saying, that you responded to, it wouldDoes it? I have not seen proof of that.
appear that National intends to undo those locally chosen lower speed >limits in addition to the previous governments mandated lower speed
limits.
As a recent example, Tauranga City Council wishes to lower speeds inMaybe so, however you appear to be opposed to this government mandatting speed
some areas - a local choice not mandated by the previous government.
Simeon Brown came out saying the Government did not support this and the >Governments new speed limit rules could reverse the local authority's >choice. I believe Tauranga intends to push on regardless and it remains
to be seen if the Government will follow through on their threat to
mandate changes.
limits so presumably you were opposed to the last government doing the same thing (regardless of whether the mandate was increasing or reducing speeds).
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]Labour mandated speed limits 24 hours per day at some schools. That is idiotic, I know two schools that were in 80k limits and that limit still exists a couple of hundred meters either side, at 4 oclock in the orning for example. Nonsense. That resulted directly from the Labour mandates.
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]Does it? I have not seen proof of that.
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]OK but that does not refute my argument. The last government did mandate >> >>some
says...
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13 Jun 2024 09:17:14 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
Bullshit.It remains to be seen whether consultation is, as we have seen inhttps://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350310208/speed-limits-120kmh-proposed-government-looks-scrap-other-reductions
In this instance the Minster of transport and Leader of ACT have
nailed
it.
They are saying what I am hearing from people I have conversations >> >> >> >>with.
They are consulting with the people. The non targeted approach of
blanket
rules from the Labour Government are allows an increase in a
disregard
for
the law.
"Blanket restrictions forced on communities from Wellington didn't >> >> >> >>just
make it harder for people to get where they wanted quickly and
safely,
they drained the joy from life as people were forced to follow rules >> >> >> >>they knew made no sense," Regulation Minister David Seymour said." >> >> >> >>
"Worse still, people ignore rules that don't make sense and once the >> >> >> >>habit forms, they ignore rules that do make sense. Sensible
lawmaking
is important for respecting the rule of law."
"The speed limit changes are out for public consultation." This is a >> >> >> >>case
of
if one agrees one should make a submission, to keep things balanced. >> >> >> >>
Woke nil, common sense 1.
It is a good idea to slow down around schools during dro off and
pick up
times but no need for the rest of the day and days school is not in. >> >> >> >>
other areas, just a way of "freedumb-washing" opinions - "you are free
to tell us anything you like, but we ultimately have to make a
decision and we have already decided what those will be." In many
areas local people would prefer the roads to be safe before limits are
raised. Decisions within local authority boundaries should be left to >> >> >> >the local Council - that deals adequately with the issue of schools, >> >> >> >but ActNat1st have shown that they are prepared to override local
authorities which is of course whenever David Seymour "knows" that He >> >> >> >can make better decisions from his Wellington Office - "Right,"
Gordon?
It was Labour that overruled local authorities and this government is >> >> >> correcting that piece of foolishness.
Your rhetoric knows no bounds.
Some local authorities were setting lower speed limits in various zones >> >> >(residential streets, CBD, etc) completely on their own before the
previous government was pushing it simply because there are good reasons >> >> >to do this.
For example, in 2012 under the previous National government Hamilton
started lowering speed limits in residential areas to 40km/h. I don't
remember when speeds were reduced in the CBD but it feels like quite a >> >> >while ago too.
changes, and that is what I said.
Going back to what Rich was saying, that you responded to, it would
appear that National intends to undo those locally chosen lower speed
limits in addition to the previous governments mandated lower speed
limits.
Maybe so, however you appear to be opposed to this government mandatting >>speed
As a recent example, Tauranga City Council wishes to lower speeds in
some areas - a local choice not mandated by the previous government.
Simeon Brown came out saying the Government did not support this and the
Governments new speed limit rules could reverse the local authority's
choice. I believe Tauranga intends to push on regardless and it remains
to be seen if the Government will follow through on their threat to
mandate changes.
limits so presumably you were opposed to the last government doing the same >> thing (regardless of whether the mandate was increasing or reducing speeds).
I'm not against safer speed limits being mandated if there is some
reasonable method for doing so that takes road design and typical
conditions into account. Safety is, after all, the whole reason the
speed limits are there. If the speed limit on a given roads is unsafe
then it kind of defeats the whole point of having it. Worse, giving a
100km/h speed limit to some road might lead drivers to believe that road
is safer than it really is.
If labour was just throwing darts at a map to pick roads with lower
speed limits, then it is reasonable to undo that. But if Labour directed
NZTA to ensure speed limits on their roads were safe and if the method
NZTA used to determine this was reasonable, then I think it is on the >Government to dedicate money to road upgrades if they're dissatisfied
with the new speed limits.
I would have a problem with Simeon Brown forcing Tauranga to raise theI don't believe he has said that. Do you have a cite?
speed limit in the CBD because this action does nothing but put
motorists who wish to drive fast above the lives of pedestrians,
cyclists and even other motorists. Making such a threat, along with
other actions he has taken, makes it clear he cares little for the
safety of those outside of cars
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>says...Labour mandated speed limits 24 hours per day at some schools. That is idiotic,
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]Does it? I have not seen proof of that.
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>> >> >says...OK but that does not refute my argument. The last government did mandate >>> >>some
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13 Jun 2024 09:17:14 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
Bullshit.It remains to be seen whether consultation is, as we have seen in >>> >> >> >other areas, just a way of "freedumb-washing" opinions - "you are freehttps://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350310208/speed-limits-120kmh-proposed-government-looks-scrap-other-reductions
In this instance the Minster of transport and Leader of ACT have >>> >> >> >>nailed
it.
They are saying what I am hearing from people I have conversations >>> >> >> >>with.
They are consulting with the people. The non targeted approach of >>> >> >> >>blanket
rules from the Labour Government are allows an increase in a
disregard
for
the law.
"Blanket restrictions forced on communities from Wellington didn't >>> >> >> >>just
make it harder for people to get where they wanted quickly and
safely,
they drained the joy from life as people were forced to follow rules
they knew made no sense," Regulation Minister David Seymour said." >>> >> >> >>
"Worse still, people ignore rules that don't make sense and once the
habit forms, they ignore rules that do make sense. Sensible
lawmaking
is important for respecting the rule of law."
"The speed limit changes are out for public consultation." This is a
case
of
if one agrees one should make a submission, to keep things balanced.
Woke nil, common sense 1.
It is a good idea to slow down around schools during dro off and >>> >> >> >>pick up
times but no need for the rest of the day and days school is not in.
to tell us anything you like, but we ultimately have to make a
decision and we have already decided what those will be." In many >>> >> >> >areas local people would prefer the roads to be safe before limits are
raised. Decisions within local authority boundaries should be left to
the local Council - that deals adequately with the issue of schools, >>> >> >> >but ActNat1st have shown that they are prepared to override local >>> >> >> >authorities which is of course whenever David Seymour "knows" that He
can make better decisions from his Wellington Office - "Right,"
Gordon?
It was Labour that overruled local authorities and this government is >>> >> >> correcting that piece of foolishness.
Your rhetoric knows no bounds.
Some local authorities were setting lower speed limits in various zones >>> >> >(residential streets, CBD, etc) completely on their own before the
previous government was pushing it simply because there are good reasons
to do this.
For example, in 2012 under the previous National government Hamilton >>> >> >started lowering speed limits in residential areas to 40km/h. I don't >>> >> >remember when speeds were reduced in the CBD but it feels like quite a >>> >> >while ago too.
changes, and that is what I said.
Going back to what Rich was saying, that you responded to, it would
appear that National intends to undo those locally chosen lower speed
limits in addition to the previous governments mandated lower speed
limits.
Maybe so, however you appear to be opposed to this government mandatting >>>speed
As a recent example, Tauranga City Council wishes to lower speeds in
some areas - a local choice not mandated by the previous government.
Simeon Brown came out saying the Government did not support this and the >>> >Governments new speed limit rules could reverse the local authority's
choice. I believe Tauranga intends to push on regardless and it remains >>> >to be seen if the Government will follow through on their threat to
mandate changes.
limits so presumably you were opposed to the last government doing the same >>> thing (regardless of whether the mandate was increasing or reducing speeds).
I'm not against safer speed limits being mandated if there is some >>reasonable method for doing so that takes road design and typical >>conditions into account. Safety is, after all, the whole reason the
speed limits are there. If the speed limit on a given roads is unsafe
then it kind of defeats the whole point of having it. Worse, giving a >>100km/h speed limit to some road might lead drivers to believe that road
is safer than it really is.
If labour was just throwing darts at a map to pick roads with lower
speed limits, then it is reasonable to undo that. But if Labour directed >>NZTA to ensure speed limits on their roads were safe and if the method
NZTA used to determine this was reasonable, then I think it is on the >>Government to dedicate money to road upgrades if they're dissatisfied
with the new speed limits.
I know two schools that were in 80k limits and that limit still exists a couple
of hundred meters either side, at 4 oclock in the orning for example. Nonsense.
That resulted directly from the Labour mandates.
I don't believe he has said that. Do you have a cite?
I would have a problem with Simeon Brown forcing Tauranga to raise the >>speed limit in the CBD because this action does nothing but put
motorists who wish to drive fast above the lives of pedestrians,
cyclists and even other motorists. Making such a threat, along with
other actions he has taken, makes it clear he cares little for the
safety of those outside of cars
On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 06:42:05 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo need. You know I am correct.
<[email protected]> wrote:
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>>says...Labour mandated speed limits 24 hours per day at some schools. That is >>idiotic,
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>>> >says...Does it? I have not seen proof of that.
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>>> >> >says...OK but that does not refute my argument. The last government did
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13 Jun 2024 09:17:14 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >> >> >
Bullshit.It remains to be seen whether consultation is, as we have seen in >>>> >> >> >other areas, just a way of "freedumb-washing" opinions - "you are >>>> >> >> >freehttps://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350310208/speed-limits-120kmh-proposed-government-looks-scrap-other-reductions
In this instance the Minster of transport and Leader of ACT have >>>> >> >> >>nailed
it.
They are saying what I am hearing from people I have conversations >>>> >> >> >>with.
They are consulting with the people. The non targeted approach of >>>> >> >> >>blanket
rules from the Labour Government are allows an increase in a
disregard
for
the law.
"Blanket restrictions forced on communities from Wellington didn't >>>> >> >> >>just
make it harder for people to get where they wanted quickly and >>>> >> >> >>safely,
they drained the joy from life as people were forced to follow >>>> >> >> >>rules
they knew made no sense," Regulation Minister David Seymour said." >>>> >> >> >>
"Worse still, people ignore rules that don't make sense and once >>>> >> >> >>the
habit forms, they ignore rules that do make sense. Sensible
lawmaking
is important for respecting the rule of law."
"The speed limit changes are out for public consultation." This is >>>> >> >> >>a
case
of
if one agrees one should make a submission, to keep things
balanced.
Woke nil, common sense 1.
It is a good idea to slow down around schools during dro off and >>>> >> >> >>pick up
times but no need for the rest of the day and days school is not >>>> >> >> >>in.
to tell us anything you like, but we ultimately have to make a
decision and we have already decided what those will be." In many >>>> >> >> >areas local people would prefer the roads to be safe before limits >>>> >> >> >are
raised. Decisions within local authority boundaries should be left >>>> >> >> >to
the local Council - that deals adequately with the issue of schools,
but ActNat1st have shown that they are prepared to override local >>>> >> >> >authorities which is of course whenever David Seymour "knows" that >>>> >> >> >He
can make better decisions from his Wellington Office - "Right," >>>> >> >> >Gordon?
It was Labour that overruled local authorities and this government >>>> >> >>is
correcting that piece of foolishness.
Your rhetoric knows no bounds.
Some local authorities were setting lower speed limits in various
zones
(residential streets, CBD, etc) completely on their own before the >>>> >> >previous government was pushing it simply because there are good
reasons
to do this.
For example, in 2012 under the previous National government Hamilton >>>> >> >started lowering speed limits in residential areas to 40km/h. I don't >>>> >> >remember when speeds were reduced in the CBD but it feels like quite a >>>> >> >while ago too.
mandate
some
changes, and that is what I said.
Going back to what Rich was saying, that you responded to, it would
appear that National intends to undo those locally chosen lower speed >>>> >limits in addition to the previous governments mandated lower speed
limits.
Maybe so, however you appear to be opposed to this government mandatting >>>>speed
As a recent example, Tauranga City Council wishes to lower speeds in
some areas - a local choice not mandated by the previous government.
Simeon Brown came out saying the Government did not support this and the >>>> >Governments new speed limit rules could reverse the local authority's >>>> >choice. I believe Tauranga intends to push on regardless and it remains >>>> >to be seen if the Government will follow through on their threat to
mandate changes.
limits so presumably you were opposed to the last government doing the >>>>same
thing (regardless of whether the mandate was increasing or reducing >>>>speeds).
I'm not against safer speed limits being mandated if there is some >>>reasonable method for doing so that takes road design and typical >>>conditions into account. Safety is, after all, the whole reason the
speed limits are there. If the speed limit on a given roads is unsafe >>>then it kind of defeats the whole point of having it. Worse, giving a >>>100km/h speed limit to some road might lead drivers to believe that road >>>is safer than it really is.
If labour was just throwing darts at a map to pick roads with lower
speed limits, then it is reasonable to undo that. But if Labour directed >>>NZTA to ensure speed limits on their roads were safe and if the method >>>NZTA used to determine this was reasonable, then I think it is on the >>>Government to dedicate money to road upgrades if they're dissatisfied >>>with the new speed limits.
I know two schools that were in 80k limits and that limit still exists a >>couple
of hundred meters either side, at 4 oclock in the orning for example. >>Nonsense.
That resulted directly from the Labour mandates.
Prove it . . .
I don't believe he has said that. Do you have a cite?
I would have a problem with Simeon Brown forcing Tauranga to raise the >>>speed limit in the CBD because this action does nothing but put
motorists who wish to drive fast above the lives of pedestrians,
cyclists and even other motorists. Making such a threat, along with
other actions he has taken, makes it clear he cares little for the
safety of those outside of cars
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:Caught you at a difficult time in the month have we Tony?
On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 06:42:05 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo need. You know I am correct.
<[email protected]> wrote:
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>>>says...Labour mandated speed limits 24 hours per day at some schools. That is >>>idiotic,
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>>>> >says...Does it? I have not seen proof of that.
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>>>> >> >says...OK but that does not refute my argument. The last government did
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13 Jun 2024 09:17:14 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >> >> >
Bullshit.It remains to be seen whether consultation is, as we have seen in >>>>> >> >> >other areas, just a way of "freedumb-washing" opinions - "you are >>>>> >> >> >freehttps://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350310208/speed-limits-120kmh-proposed-government-looks-scrap-other-reductions
In this instance the Minster of transport and Leader of ACT have >>>>> >> >> >>nailed
it.
They are saying what I am hearing from people I have conversations
with.
They are consulting with the people. The non targeted approach of >>>>> >> >> >>blanket
rules from the Labour Government are allows an increase in a >>>>> >> >> >>disregard
for
the law.
"Blanket restrictions forced on communities from Wellington didn't
just
make it harder for people to get where they wanted quickly and >>>>> >> >> >>safely,
they drained the joy from life as people were forced to follow >>>>> >> >> >>rules
they knew made no sense," Regulation Minister David Seymour said."
"Worse still, people ignore rules that don't make sense and once >>>>> >> >> >>the
habit forms, they ignore rules that do make sense. Sensible
lawmaking
is important for respecting the rule of law."
"The speed limit changes are out for public consultation." This is
a
case
of
if one agrees one should make a submission, to keep things
balanced.
Woke nil, common sense 1.
It is a good idea to slow down around schools during dro off and >>>>> >> >> >>pick up
times but no need for the rest of the day and days school is not >>>>> >> >> >>in.
to tell us anything you like, but we ultimately have to make a >>>>> >> >> >decision and we have already decided what those will be." In many >>>>> >> >> >areas local people would prefer the roads to be safe before limits >>>>> >> >> >are
raised. Decisions within local authority boundaries should be left >>>>> >> >> >to
the local Council - that deals adequately with the issue of schools,
but ActNat1st have shown that they are prepared to override local >>>>> >> >> >authorities which is of course whenever David Seymour "knows" that >>>>> >> >> >He
can make better decisions from his Wellington Office - "Right," >>>>> >> >> >Gordon?
It was Labour that overruled local authorities and this government >>>>> >> >>is
correcting that piece of foolishness.
Your rhetoric knows no bounds.
Some local authorities were setting lower speed limits in various >>>>> >> >zones
(residential streets, CBD, etc) completely on their own before the >>>>> >> >previous government was pushing it simply because there are good >>>>> >> >reasons
to do this.
For example, in 2012 under the previous National government Hamilton >>>>> >> >started lowering speed limits in residential areas to 40km/h. I don't >>>>> >> >remember when speeds were reduced in the CBD but it feels like quite a
while ago too.
mandate
some
changes, and that is what I said.
Going back to what Rich was saying, that you responded to, it would >>>>> >appear that National intends to undo those locally chosen lower speed >>>>> >limits in addition to the previous governments mandated lower speed >>>>> >limits.
Maybe so, however you appear to be opposed to this government mandatting >>>>>speed
As a recent example, Tauranga City Council wishes to lower speeds in >>>>> >some areas - a local choice not mandated by the previous government. >>>>> >Simeon Brown came out saying the Government did not support this and the >>>>> >Governments new speed limit rules could reverse the local authority's >>>>> >choice. I believe Tauranga intends to push on regardless and it remains >>>>> >to be seen if the Government will follow through on their threat to >>>>> >mandate changes.
limits so presumably you were opposed to the last government doing the >>>>>same
thing (regardless of whether the mandate was increasing or reducing >>>>>speeds).
I'm not against safer speed limits being mandated if there is some >>>>reasonable method for doing so that takes road design and typical >>>>conditions into account. Safety is, after all, the whole reason the >>>>speed limits are there. If the speed limit on a given roads is unsafe >>>>then it kind of defeats the whole point of having it. Worse, giving a >>>>100km/h speed limit to some road might lead drivers to believe that road >>>>is safer than it really is.
If labour was just throwing darts at a map to pick roads with lower >>>>speed limits, then it is reasonable to undo that. But if Labour directed >>>>NZTA to ensure speed limits on their roads were safe and if the method >>>>NZTA used to determine this was reasonable, then I think it is on the >>>>Government to dedicate money to road upgrades if they're dissatisfied >>>>with the new speed limits.
I know two schools that were in 80k limits and that limit still exists a >>>couple
of hundred meters either side, at 4 oclock in the orning for example. >>>Nonsense.
That resulted directly from the Labour mandates.
Prove it . . .
Labour told councils to reduce speed limits at schools. Period.
I don't believe he has said that. Do you have a cite?
I would have a problem with Simeon Brown forcing Tauranga to raise the >>>>speed limit in the CBD because this action does nothing but put >>>>motorists who wish to drive fast above the lives of pedestrians, >>>>cyclists and even other motorists. Making such a threat, along with >>>>other actions he has taken, makes it clear he cares little for the >>>>safety of those outside of cars
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]Does it? I have not seen proof of that.
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >> >> >says...OK but that does not refute my argument. The last government did mandate
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13 Jun 2024 09:17:14 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
Bullshit.It remains to be seen whether consultation is, as we have seen in >> >> >> >other areas, just a way of "freedumb-washing" opinions - "you are freehttps://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350310208/speed-limits-120kmh-proposed-government-looks-scrap-other-reductions
In this instance the Minster of transport and Leader of ACT have >> >> >> >>nailed
it.
They are saying what I am hearing from people I have conversations >> >> >> >>with.
They are consulting with the people. The non targeted approach of >> >> >> >>blanket
rules from the Labour Government are allows an increase in a
disregard
for
the law.
"Blanket restrictions forced on communities from Wellington didn't >> >> >> >>just
make it harder for people to get where they wanted quickly and
safely,
they drained the joy from life as people were forced to follow rules
they knew made no sense," Regulation Minister David Seymour said." >> >> >> >>
"Worse still, people ignore rules that don't make sense and once the
habit forms, they ignore rules that do make sense. Sensible
lawmaking
is important for respecting the rule of law."
"The speed limit changes are out for public consultation." This is a
case
of
if one agrees one should make a submission, to keep things balanced.
Woke nil, common sense 1.
It is a good idea to slow down around schools during dro off and >> >> >> >>pick up
times but no need for the rest of the day and days school is not in.
to tell us anything you like, but we ultimately have to make a
decision and we have already decided what those will be." In many >> >> >> >areas local people would prefer the roads to be safe before limits are
raised. Decisions within local authority boundaries should be left to
the local Council - that deals adequately with the issue of schools,
but ActNat1st have shown that they are prepared to override local >> >> >> >authorities which is of course whenever David Seymour "knows" that He
can make better decisions from his Wellington Office - "Right,"
Gordon?
It was Labour that overruled local authorities and this government is
correcting that piece of foolishness.
Your rhetoric knows no bounds.
Some local authorities were setting lower speed limits in various zones
(residential streets, CBD, etc) completely on their own before the
previous government was pushing it simply because there are good reasons
to do this.
For example, in 2012 under the previous National government Hamilton >> >> >started lowering speed limits in residential areas to 40km/h. I don't >> >> >remember when speeds were reduced in the CBD but it feels like quite a >> >> >while ago too.
some
changes, and that is what I said.
Going back to what Rich was saying, that you responded to, it would
appear that National intends to undo those locally chosen lower speed
limits in addition to the previous governments mandated lower speed
limits.
Maybe so, however you appear to be opposed to this government mandatting >>speed
As a recent example, Tauranga City Council wishes to lower speeds in
some areas - a local choice not mandated by the previous government.
Simeon Brown came out saying the Government did not support this and the >> >Governments new speed limit rules could reverse the local authority's
choice. I believe Tauranga intends to push on regardless and it remains >> >to be seen if the Government will follow through on their threat to
mandate changes.
limits so presumably you were opposed to the last government doing the same
thing (regardless of whether the mandate was increasing or reducing speeds).
I'm not against safer speed limits being mandated if there is some >reasonable method for doing so that takes road design and typical >conditions into account. Safety is, after all, the whole reason the
speed limits are there. If the speed limit on a given roads is unsafe
then it kind of defeats the whole point of having it. Worse, giving a >100km/h speed limit to some road might lead drivers to believe that road
is safer than it really is.
If labour was just throwing darts at a map to pick roads with lowerLabour mandated speed limits 24 hours per day at some schools. That is idiotic,
speed limits, then it is reasonable to undo that. But if Labour directed >NZTA to ensure speed limits on their roads were safe and if the method
NZTA used to determine this was reasonable, then I think it is on the >Government to dedicate money to road upgrades if they're dissatisfied
with the new speed limits.
I know two schools that were in 80k limits and that limit still exists a couple
of hundred meters either side, at 4 oclock in the orning for example. Nonsense.
That resulted directly from the Labour mandates.
I would have a problem with Simeon Brown forcing Tauranga to raise the >speed limit in the CBD because this action does nothing but putI don't believe he has said that. Do you have a cite?
motorists who wish to drive fast above the lives of pedestrians,
cyclists and even other motorists. Making such a threat, along with
other actions he has taken, makes it clear he cares little for the
safety of those outside of cars
On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 06:42:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>>says...Labour mandated speed limits 24 hours per day at some schools. That is idiotic,
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>>> >says...Does it? I have not seen proof of that.
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>>> >> >says...OK but that does not refute my argument. The last government did mandate
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13 Jun 2024 09:17:14 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >> >> >
Bullshit.It remains to be seen whether consultation is, as we have seen in >>>> >> >> >other areas, just a way of "freedumb-washing" opinions - "you are freehttps://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350310208/speed-limits-120kmh-proposed-government-looks-scrap-other-reductions
In this instance the Minster of transport and Leader of ACT have >>>> >> >> >>nailed
it.
They are saying what I am hearing from people I have conversations >>>> >> >> >>with.
They are consulting with the people. The non targeted approach of >>>> >> >> >>blanket
rules from the Labour Government are allows an increase in a
disregard
for
the law.
"Blanket restrictions forced on communities from Wellington didn't >>>> >> >> >>just
make it harder for people to get where they wanted quickly and >>>> >> >> >>safely,
they drained the joy from life as people were forced to follow rules
they knew made no sense," Regulation Minister David Seymour said." >>>> >> >> >>
"Worse still, people ignore rules that don't make sense and once the
habit forms, they ignore rules that do make sense. Sensible
lawmaking
is important for respecting the rule of law."
"The speed limit changes are out for public consultation." This is a
case
of
if one agrees one should make a submission, to keep things balanced.
Woke nil, common sense 1.
It is a good idea to slow down around schools during dro off and >>>> >> >> >>pick up
times but no need for the rest of the day and days school is not in.
to tell us anything you like, but we ultimately have to make a
decision and we have already decided what those will be." In many >>>> >> >> >areas local people would prefer the roads to be safe before limits are
raised. Decisions within local authority boundaries should be left to
the local Council - that deals adequately with the issue of schools,
but ActNat1st have shown that they are prepared to override local >>>> >> >> >authorities which is of course whenever David Seymour "knows" that He
can make better decisions from his Wellington Office - "Right," >>>> >> >> >Gordon?
It was Labour that overruled local authorities and this government is
correcting that piece of foolishness.
Your rhetoric knows no bounds.
Some local authorities were setting lower speed limits in various zones
(residential streets, CBD, etc) completely on their own before the >>>> >> >previous government was pushing it simply because there are good reasons
to do this.
For example, in 2012 under the previous National government Hamilton >>>> >> >started lowering speed limits in residential areas to 40km/h. I don't >>>> >> >remember when speeds were reduced in the CBD but it feels like quite a >>>> >> >while ago too.
some
changes, and that is what I said.
Going back to what Rich was saying, that you responded to, it would
appear that National intends to undo those locally chosen lower speed >>>> >limits in addition to the previous governments mandated lower speed
limits.
Maybe so, however you appear to be opposed to this government mandatting >>>>speed
As a recent example, Tauranga City Council wishes to lower speeds in
some areas - a local choice not mandated by the previous government.
Simeon Brown came out saying the Government did not support this and the >>>> >Governments new speed limit rules could reverse the local authority's >>>> >choice. I believe Tauranga intends to push on regardless and it remains >>>> >to be seen if the Government will follow through on their threat to
mandate changes.
limits so presumably you were opposed to the last government doing the same
thing (regardless of whether the mandate was increasing or reducing speeds).
I'm not against safer speed limits being mandated if there is some >>>reasonable method for doing so that takes road design and typical >>>conditions into account. Safety is, after all, the whole reason the
speed limits are there. If the speed limit on a given roads is unsafe >>>then it kind of defeats the whole point of having it. Worse, giving a >>>100km/h speed limit to some road might lead drivers to believe that road >>>is safer than it really is.
If labour was just throwing darts at a map to pick roads with lower
speed limits, then it is reasonable to undo that. But if Labour directed >>>NZTA to ensure speed limits on their roads were safe and if the method >>>NZTA used to determine this was reasonable, then I think it is on the >>>Government to dedicate money to road upgrades if they're dissatisfied >>>with the new speed limits.
I know two schools that were in 80k limits and that limit still exists a couple
of hundred meters either side, at 4 oclock in the orning for example. Nonsense.
That resulted directly from the Labour mandates.
Prove it . . .
I don't believe he has said that. Do you have a cite?
I would have a problem with Simeon Brown forcing Tauranga to raise the >>>speed limit in the CBD because this action does nothing but put
motorists who wish to drive fast above the lives of pedestrians,
cyclists and even other motorists. Making such a threat, along with
other actions he has taken, makes it clear he cares little for the
safety of those outside of cars
On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 20:50:44 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou disgusting little fuck - piss off.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 06:42:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Caught you at a difficult time in the month have we Tony?No need. You know I am correct.of hundred meters either side, at 4 oclock in the orning for example. >>>>Nonsense.
That resulted directly from the Labour mandates.
Prove it . . .
Labour told councils to reduce speed limits at schools. Period.
And yes you are wrong again, on a number of issues.Not even one - you are lying.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]So he did not say he would force anything, only that he warned the council that the idea might not be a good one and might not be in line with future government policy. That is not a mandate.
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]Labour mandated speed limits 24 hours per day at some schools. That is >>idiotic,
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]Does it? I have not seen proof of that.
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >> >> >> >says...OK but that does not refute my argument. The last government did
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13 Jun 2024 09:17:14 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
Bullshit.It remains to be seen whether consultation is, as we have seen in >> >> >> >> >other areas, just a way of "freedumb-washing" opinions - "you are >> >> >> >> >freehttps://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350310208/speed-limits-120kmh-proposed-government-looks-scrap-other-reductions
In this instance the Minster of transport and Leader of ACT have >> >> >> >> >>nailed
it.
They are saying what I am hearing from people I have
conversations
with.
They are consulting with the people. The non targeted approach of >> >> >> >> >>blanket
rules from the Labour Government are allows an increase in a
disregard
for
the law.
"Blanket restrictions forced on communities from Wellington
didn't
just
make it harder for people to get where they wanted quickly and
safely,
they drained the joy from life as people were forced to follow
rules
they knew made no sense," Regulation Minister David Seymour said."
"Worse still, people ignore rules that don't make sense and once >> >> >> >> >>the
habit forms, they ignore rules that do make sense. Sensible
lawmaking
is important for respecting the rule of law."
"The speed limit changes are out for public consultation." This >> >> >> >> >>is a
case
of
if one agrees one should make a submission, to keep things
balanced.
Woke nil, common sense 1.
It is a good idea to slow down around schools during dro off and >> >> >> >> >>pick up
times but no need for the rest of the day and days school is not >> >> >> >> >>in.
to tell us anything you like, but we ultimately have to make a
decision and we have already decided what those will be." In many >> >> >> >> >areas local people would prefer the roads to be safe before limits >> >> >> >> >are
raised. Decisions within local authority boundaries should be left >> >> >> >> >to
the local Council - that deals adequately with the issue of
schools,
but ActNat1st have shown that they are prepared to override local >> >> >> >> >authorities which is of course whenever David Seymour "knows" that >> >> >> >> >He
can make better decisions from his Wellington Office - "Right," >> >> >> >> >Gordon?
It was Labour that overruled local authorities and this government >> >> >> >>is
correcting that piece of foolishness.
Your rhetoric knows no bounds.
Some local authorities were setting lower speed limits in various
zones
(residential streets, CBD, etc) completely on their own before the
previous government was pushing it simply because there are good
reasons
to do this.
For example, in 2012 under the previous National government Hamilton >> >> >> >started lowering speed limits in residential areas to 40km/h. I don't >> >> >> >remember when speeds were reduced in the CBD but it feels like quite >> >> >> >a
while ago too.
mandate
some
changes, and that is what I said.
Going back to what Rich was saying, that you responded to, it would
appear that National intends to undo those locally chosen lower speed
limits in addition to the previous governments mandated lower speed
limits.
Maybe so, however you appear to be opposed to this government mandatting >> >>speed
As a recent example, Tauranga City Council wishes to lower speeds in
some areas - a local choice not mandated by the previous government.
Simeon Brown came out saying the Government did not support this and the >> >> >Governments new speed limit rules could reverse the local authority's
choice. I believe Tauranga intends to push on regardless and it remains >> >> >to be seen if the Government will follow through on their threat to
mandate changes.
limits so presumably you were opposed to the last government doing the
same
thing (regardless of whether the mandate was increasing or reducing
speeds).
I'm not against safer speed limits being mandated if there is some
reasonable method for doing so that takes road design and typical
conditions into account. Safety is, after all, the whole reason the
speed limits are there. If the speed limit on a given roads is unsafe
then it kind of defeats the whole point of having it. Worse, giving a
100km/h speed limit to some road might lead drivers to believe that road
is safer than it really is.
If labour was just throwing darts at a map to pick roads with lower
speed limits, then it is reasonable to undo that. But if Labour directed
NZTA to ensure speed limits on their roads were safe and if the method
NZTA used to determine this was reasonable, then I think it is on the
Government to dedicate money to road upgrades if they're dissatisfied
with the new speed limits.
I know two schools that were in 80k limits and that limit still exists a >>couple
of hundred meters either side, at 4 oclock in the orning for example. >>Nonsense.
That resulted directly from the Labour mandates.
I don't believe he has said that. Do you have a cite?
I would have a problem with Simeon Brown forcing Tauranga to raise the
speed limit in the CBD because this action does nothing but put
motorists who wish to drive fast above the lives of pedestrians,
cyclists and even other motorists. Making such a threat, along with
other actions he has taken, makes it clear he cares little for the
safety of those outside of cars
Sure! Here is an article from April: >https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/514231/tauranga-s-speed-limit- >proposal-met-with-warning-from-minister
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]Labour mandated speed limits 24 hours per day at some schools. That is >>idiotic,
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >> >> >says...Does it? I have not seen proof of that.
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]OK but that does not refute my argument. The last government did
says...
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13 Jun 2024 09:17:14 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >
Bullshit.It remains to be seen whether consultation is, as we have seen inhttps://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350310208/speed-limits-120kmh-proposed-government-looks-scrap-other-reductions
In this instance the Minster of transport and Leader of ACT have
nailed
it.
They are saying what I am hearing from people I have
conversations
with.
They are consulting with the people. The non targeted approach of
blanket
rules from the Labour Government are allows an increase in a
disregard
for
the law.
"Blanket restrictions forced on communities from Wellington
didn't
just
make it harder for people to get where they wanted quickly and >> >> >> >> >>safely,
they drained the joy from life as people were forced to follow >> >> >> >> >>rules
they knew made no sense," Regulation Minister David Seymour said."
"Worse still, people ignore rules that don't make sense and once
the
habit forms, they ignore rules that do make sense. Sensible
lawmaking
is important for respecting the rule of law."
"The speed limit changes are out for public consultation." This >> >> >> >> >>is a
case
of
if one agrees one should make a submission, to keep things
balanced.
Woke nil, common sense 1.
It is a good idea to slow down around schools during dro off and
pick up
times but no need for the rest of the day and days school is not
in.
other areas, just a way of "freedumb-washing" opinions - "you are
free
to tell us anything you like, but we ultimately have to make a >> >> >> >> >decision and we have already decided what those will be." In many
areas local people would prefer the roads to be safe before limits
are
raised. Decisions within local authority boundaries should be left
to
the local Council - that deals adequately with the issue of
schools,
but ActNat1st have shown that they are prepared to override local
authorities which is of course whenever David Seymour "knows" that
He
can make better decisions from his Wellington Office - "Right," >> >> >> >> >Gordon?
It was Labour that overruled local authorities and this government
is
correcting that piece of foolishness.
Your rhetoric knows no bounds.
Some local authorities were setting lower speed limits in various >> >> >> >zones
(residential streets, CBD, etc) completely on their own before the >> >> >> >previous government was pushing it simply because there are good
reasons
to do this.
For example, in 2012 under the previous National government Hamilton
started lowering speed limits in residential areas to 40km/h. I don't
remember when speeds were reduced in the CBD but it feels like quite
a
while ago too.
mandate
some
changes, and that is what I said.
Going back to what Rich was saying, that you responded to, it would
appear that National intends to undo those locally chosen lower speed >> >> >limits in addition to the previous governments mandated lower speed
limits.
Maybe so, however you appear to be opposed to this government mandatting
As a recent example, Tauranga City Council wishes to lower speeds in >> >> >some areas - a local choice not mandated by the previous government. >> >> >Simeon Brown came out saying the Government did not support this and the
Governments new speed limit rules could reverse the local authority's >> >> >choice. I believe Tauranga intends to push on regardless and it remains
to be seen if the Government will follow through on their threat to
mandate changes.
speed
limits so presumably you were opposed to the last government doing the >> >>same
thing (regardless of whether the mandate was increasing or reducing
speeds).
I'm not against safer speed limits being mandated if there is some
reasonable method for doing so that takes road design and typical
conditions into account. Safety is, after all, the whole reason the
speed limits are there. If the speed limit on a given roads is unsafe
then it kind of defeats the whole point of having it. Worse, giving a
100km/h speed limit to some road might lead drivers to believe that road >> >is safer than it really is.
If labour was just throwing darts at a map to pick roads with lower
speed limits, then it is reasonable to undo that. But if Labour directed >> >NZTA to ensure speed limits on their roads were safe and if the method
NZTA used to determine this was reasonable, then I think it is on the
Government to dedicate money to road upgrades if they're dissatisfied
with the new speed limits.
I know two schools that were in 80k limits and that limit still exists a >>couple
of hundred meters either side, at 4 oclock in the orning for example. >>Nonsense.
That resulted directly from the Labour mandates.
I don't believe he has said that. Do you have a cite?
I would have a problem with Simeon Brown forcing Tauranga to raise the
speed limit in the CBD because this action does nothing but put
motorists who wish to drive fast above the lives of pedestrians,
cyclists and even other motorists. Making such a threat, along with
other actions he has taken, makes it clear he cares little for the
safety of those outside of cars
Sure! Here is an article from April: >https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/514231/tauranga-s-speed-limit- >proposal-met-with-warning-from-ministerSo he did not say he would force anything, only that he warned the council that
the idea might not be a good one and might not be in line with future government policy. That is not a mandate.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]Exactly. An instruction and a warning are not the same thing.
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]So he did not say he would force anything, only that he warned the council >>that
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]Labour mandated speed limits 24 hours per day at some schools. That is
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >> >> >> >says...Does it? I have not seen proof of that.
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,OK but that does not refute my argument. The last government did
[email protected]
says...
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13 Jun 2024 09:17:14 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >
Bullshit.It remains to be seen whether consultation is, as we have seen >> >> >> >> >> >inhttps://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350310208/speed-limits-120kmh-proposed-government-looks-scrap-other-reductions
In this instance the Minster of transport and Leader of ACT
have
nailed
it.
They are saying what I am hearing from people I have
conversations
with.
They are consulting with the people. The non targeted approach >> >> >> >> >> >>of
blanket
rules from the Labour Government are allows an increase in a >> >> >> >> >> >>disregard
for
the law.
"Blanket restrictions forced on communities from Wellington
didn't
just
make it harder for people to get where they wanted quickly and >> >> >> >> >> >>safely,
they drained the joy from life as people were forced to follow >> >> >> >> >> >>rules
they knew made no sense," Regulation Minister David Seymour
said."
"Worse still, people ignore rules that don't make sense and
once
the
habit forms, they ignore rules that do make sense. Sensible
lawmaking
is important for respecting the rule of law."
"The speed limit changes are out for public consultation."
This
is a
case
of
if one agrees one should make a submission, to keep things
balanced.
Woke nil, common sense 1.
It is a good idea to slow down around schools during dro off >> >> >> >> >> >>and
pick up
times but no need for the rest of the day and days school is >> >> >> >> >> >>not
in.
other areas, just a way of "freedumb-washing" opinions - "you >> >> >> >> >> >are
free
to tell us anything you like, but we ultimately have to make a >> >> >> >> >> >decision and we have already decided what those will be." In
many
areas local people would prefer the roads to be safe before
limits
are
raised. Decisions within local authority boundaries should be >> >> >> >> >> >left
to
the local Council - that deals adequately with the issue of
schools,
but ActNat1st have shown that they are prepared to override
local
authorities which is of course whenever David Seymour "knows" >> >> >> >> >> >that
He
can make better decisions from his Wellington Office - "Right,"
Gordon?
It was Labour that overruled local authorities and this
government
is
correcting that piece of foolishness.
Your rhetoric knows no bounds.
Some local authorities were setting lower speed limits in various >> >> >> >> >zones
(residential streets, CBD, etc) completely on their own before the >> >> >> >> >previous government was pushing it simply because there are good >> >> >> >> >reasons
to do this.
For example, in 2012 under the previous National government
Hamilton
started lowering speed limits in residential areas to 40km/h. I
don't
remember when speeds were reduced in the CBD but it feels like
quite
a
while ago too.
mandate
some
changes, and that is what I said.
Going back to what Rich was saying, that you responded to, it would >> >> >> >appear that National intends to undo those locally chosen lower speed >> >> >> >limits in addition to the previous governments mandated lower speed >> >> >> >limits.
Maybe so, however you appear to be opposed to this government
As a recent example, Tauranga City Council wishes to lower speeds in >> >> >> >some areas - a local choice not mandated by the previous government. >> >> >> >Simeon Brown came out saying the Government did not support this and >> >> >> >the
Governments new speed limit rules could reverse the local authority's >> >> >> >choice. I believe Tauranga intends to push on regardless and it
remains
to be seen if the Government will follow through on their threat to >> >> >> >mandate changes.
mandatting
speed
limits so presumably you were opposed to the last government doing the >> >> >>same
thing (regardless of whether the mandate was increasing or reducing
speeds).
I'm not against safer speed limits being mandated if there is some
reasonable method for doing so that takes road design and typical
conditions into account. Safety is, after all, the whole reason the
speed limits are there. If the speed limit on a given roads is unsafe
then it kind of defeats the whole point of having it. Worse, giving a
100km/h speed limit to some road might lead drivers to believe that road >> >> >is safer than it really is.
If labour was just throwing darts at a map to pick roads with lower
speed limits, then it is reasonable to undo that. But if Labour directed >> >> >NZTA to ensure speed limits on their roads were safe and if the method >> >> >NZTA used to determine this was reasonable, then I think it is on the
Government to dedicate money to road upgrades if they're dissatisfied
with the new speed limits.
idiotic,
I know two schools that were in 80k limits and that limit still exists a >> >>couple
of hundred meters either side, at 4 oclock in the orning for example.
Nonsense.
That resulted directly from the Labour mandates.
I don't believe he has said that. Do you have a cite?
I would have a problem with Simeon Brown forcing Tauranga to raise the >> >> >speed limit in the CBD because this action does nothing but put
motorists who wish to drive fast above the lives of pedestrians,
cyclists and even other motorists. Making such a threat, along with
other actions he has taken, makes it clear he cares little for the
safety of those outside of cars
Sure! Here is an article from April:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/514231/tauranga-s-speed-limit-
proposal-met-with-warning-from-minister
the idea might not be a good one and might not be in line with future
government policy. That is not a mandate.
"The government's view is that speed limit reductions should be targeted
to high crash areas. As outlined in March, the new speed rule will
reverse blanket speed reductions unless it is unsafe to do so," he said.
"I encourage Tauranga City Council to consider the policy direction for
the new rule that I expect to be in place before the end of the year.
"This will prevent ratepayer money being spent on speed limit changes
now that may need to be changed under the new rule," he said.
So, Simeon Brown was warning Tauranga that if they lowered the speed
limit now, the Governments new policy may force Tauranga to undo it
later making the effort to lower it now a waste of time and ratepayer
money.
He didn't specifically say this was a certainty though - just sowing
doubt, trying to discourage Tauranga from doing what it wants to do. It >remains to be seen if the Government really will force them to undo this
or not. But this makes it clear the Government isn't just targeting
lower speed limits mandated by the previous government - decisions made
by local authorities on their own are in scope too.
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]So he did not say he would force anything, only that he warned the council >>that
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >> >> >says...Labour mandated speed limits 24 hours per day at some schools. That is >> >>idiotic,
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]Does it? I have not seen proof of that.
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,OK but that does not refute my argument. The last government did >> >> >> >>mandate
[email protected]
says...
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13 Jun 2024 09:17:14 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
Bullshit.It remains to be seen whether consultation is, as we have seenhttps://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350310208/speed-limits-120kmh-proposed-government-looks-scrap-other-reductions
In this instance the Minster of transport and Leader of ACT >> >> >> >> >> >>have
nailed
it.
They are saying what I am hearing from people I have
conversations
with.
They are consulting with the people. The non targeted approach
of
blanket
rules from the Labour Government are allows an increase in a >> >> >> >> >> >>disregard
for
the law.
"Blanket restrictions forced on communities from Wellington >> >> >> >> >> >>didn't
just
make it harder for people to get where they wanted quickly and
safely,
they drained the joy from life as people were forced to follow
rules
they knew made no sense," Regulation Minister David Seymour >> >> >> >> >> >>said."
"Worse still, people ignore rules that don't make sense and >> >> >> >> >> >>once
the
habit forms, they ignore rules that do make sense. Sensible >> >> >> >> >> >>lawmaking
is important for respecting the rule of law."
"The speed limit changes are out for public consultation." >> >> >> >> >> >>This
is a
case
of
if one agrees one should make a submission, to keep things >> >> >> >> >> >>balanced.
Woke nil, common sense 1.
It is a good idea to slow down around schools during dro off >> >> >> >> >> >>and
pick up
times but no need for the rest of the day and days school is >> >> >> >> >> >>not
in.
in
other areas, just a way of "freedumb-washing" opinions - "you >> >> >> >> >> >are
free
to tell us anything you like, but we ultimately have to make a
decision and we have already decided what those will be." In >> >> >> >> >> >many
areas local people would prefer the roads to be safe before >> >> >> >> >> >limits
are
raised. Decisions within local authority boundaries should be >> >> >> >> >> >left
to
the local Council - that deals adequately with the issue of >> >> >> >> >> >schools,
but ActNat1st have shown that they are prepared to override >> >> >> >> >> >local
authorities which is of course whenever David Seymour "knows" >> >> >> >> >> >that
He
can make better decisions from his Wellington Office - "Right,"
Gordon?
It was Labour that overruled local authorities and this
government
is
correcting that piece of foolishness.
Your rhetoric knows no bounds.
Some local authorities were setting lower speed limits in various
zones
(residential streets, CBD, etc) completely on their own before the
previous government was pushing it simply because there are good >> >> >> >> >reasons
to do this.
For example, in 2012 under the previous National government
Hamilton
started lowering speed limits in residential areas to 40km/h. I >> >> >> >> >don't
remember when speeds were reduced in the CBD but it feels like >> >> >> >> >quite
a
while ago too.
some
changes, and that is what I said.
Going back to what Rich was saying, that you responded to, it would >> >> >> >appear that National intends to undo those locally chosen lower speed
limits in addition to the previous governments mandated lower speed >> >> >> >limits.
Maybe so, however you appear to be opposed to this government
As a recent example, Tauranga City Council wishes to lower speeds in
some areas - a local choice not mandated by the previous government.
Simeon Brown came out saying the Government did not support this and
the
Governments new speed limit rules could reverse the local authority's
choice. I believe Tauranga intends to push on regardless and it
remains
to be seen if the Government will follow through on their threat to >> >> >> >mandate changes.
mandatting
speed
limits so presumably you were opposed to the last government doing the
same
thing (regardless of whether the mandate was increasing or reducing >> >> >>speeds).
I'm not against safer speed limits being mandated if there is some
reasonable method for doing so that takes road design and typical
conditions into account. Safety is, after all, the whole reason the
speed limits are there. If the speed limit on a given roads is unsafe >> >> >then it kind of defeats the whole point of having it. Worse, giving a >> >> >100km/h speed limit to some road might lead drivers to believe that road
is safer than it really is.
If labour was just throwing darts at a map to pick roads with lower
speed limits, then it is reasonable to undo that. But if Labour directed
NZTA to ensure speed limits on their roads were safe and if the method >> >> >NZTA used to determine this was reasonable, then I think it is on the >> >> >Government to dedicate money to road upgrades if they're dissatisfied >> >> >with the new speed limits.
I know two schools that were in 80k limits and that limit still exists a
couple
of hundred meters either side, at 4 oclock in the orning for example. >> >>Nonsense.
That resulted directly from the Labour mandates.
I don't believe he has said that. Do you have a cite?
I would have a problem with Simeon Brown forcing Tauranga to raise the >> >> >speed limit in the CBD because this action does nothing but put
motorists who wish to drive fast above the lives of pedestrians,
cyclists and even other motorists. Making such a threat, along with
other actions he has taken, makes it clear he cares little for the
safety of those outside of cars
Sure! Here is an article from April:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/514231/tauranga-s-speed-limit-
proposal-met-with-warning-from-minister
the idea might not be a good one and might not be in line with future
government policy. That is not a mandate.
"The government's view is that speed limit reductions should be targeted
to high crash areas. As outlined in March, the new speed rule will
reverse blanket speed reductions unless it is unsafe to do so," he said.
"I encourage Tauranga City Council to consider the policy direction for
the new rule that I expect to be in place before the end of the year.
"This will prevent ratepayer money being spent on speed limit changes
now that may need to be changed under the new rule," he said.
So, Simeon Brown was warning Tauranga that if they lowered the speed
limit now, the Governments new policy may force Tauranga to undo it
later making the effort to lower it now a waste of time and ratepayer >money.
He didn't specifically say this was a certainty though - just sowingExactly. An instruction and a warning are not the same thing.
doubt, trying to discourage Tauranga from doing what it wants to do. It >remains to be seen if the Government really will force them to undo this
or not. But this makes it clear the Government isn't just targeting
lower speed limits mandated by the previous government - decisions made
by local authorities on their own are in scope too.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]reductions
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >> >> >> >says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
says...
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13 Jun 2024 09:17:14 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]>
wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350310208/speed-limits-120kmh-proposed-government-looks-scrap-other-
No David they are not. I will not debate English with you since clearly you and I were differently educated. But on this matter you are incorrect.Exactly. An instruction and a warning are not the same thing.So he did not say he would force anything, only that he warned theLabour mandated speed limits 24 hours per day at some schools. That is >> >> >>idiotic,Does it? I have not seen proof of that.OK but that does not refute my argument. The last government did >> >> >> >> >>mandateBullshit.It remains to be seen whether consultation is, as we have
In this instance the Minster of transport and Leader of ACT >> >> >> >> >> >> >>have
nailed
it.
They are saying what I am hearing from people I have
conversations
with.
They are consulting with the people. The non targeted
approach
of
blanket
rules from the Labour Government are allows an increase in >> >> >> >> >> >> >>a
disregard
for
the law.
"Blanket restrictions forced on communities from Wellington >> >> >> >> >> >> >>didn't
just
make it harder for people to get where they wanted quickly >> >> >> >> >> >> >>and
safely,
they drained the joy from life as people were forced to
follow
rules
they knew made no sense," Regulation Minister David Seymour >> >> >> >> >> >> >>said."
"Worse still, people ignore rules that don't make sense and >> >> >> >> >> >> >>once
the
habit forms, they ignore rules that do make sense. Sensible >> >> >> >> >> >> >>lawmaking
is important for respecting the rule of law."
"The speed limit changes are out for public consultation." >> >> >> >> >> >> >>This
is a
case
of
if one agrees one should make a submission, to keep things >> >> >> >> >> >> >>balanced.
Woke nil, common sense 1.
It is a good idea to slow down around schools during dro
off
and
pick up
times but no need for the rest of the day and days school >> >> >> >> >> >> >>is
not
in.
seen
in
other areas, just a way of "freedumb-washing" opinions -
"you
are
free
to tell us anything you like, but we ultimately have to make >> >> >> >> >> >> >a
decision and we have already decided what those will be." In >> >> >> >> >> >> >many
areas local people would prefer the roads to be safe before >> >> >> >> >> >> >limits
are
raised. Decisions within local authority boundaries should >> >> >> >> >> >> >be
left
to
the local Council - that deals adequately with the issue of >> >> >> >> >> >> >schools,
but ActNat1st have shown that they are prepared to override >> >> >> >> >> >> >local
authorities which is of course whenever David Seymour
"knows"
that
He
can make better decisions from his Wellington Office -
"Right,"
Gordon?
It was Labour that overruled local authorities and this
government
is
correcting that piece of foolishness.
Your rhetoric knows no bounds.
Some local authorities were setting lower speed limits in
various
zones
(residential streets, CBD, etc) completely on their own before >> >> >> >> >> >the
previous government was pushing it simply because there are
good
reasons
to do this.
For example, in 2012 under the previous National government
Hamilton
started lowering speed limits in residential areas to 40km/h. I >> >> >> >> >> >don't
remember when speeds were reduced in the CBD but it feels like >> >> >> >> >> >quite
a
while ago too.
some
changes, and that is what I said.
Going back to what Rich was saying, that you responded to, it
would
appear that National intends to undo those locally chosen lower
speed
limits in addition to the previous governments mandated lower
speed
limits.
Maybe so, however you appear to be opposed to this government
As a recent example, Tauranga City Council wishes to lower speeds >> >> >> >> >in
some areas - a local choice not mandated by the previous
government.
Simeon Brown came out saying the Government did not support this >> >> >> >> >and
the
Governments new speed limit rules could reverse the local
authority's
choice. I believe Tauranga intends to push on regardless and it
remains
to be seen if the Government will follow through on their threat >> >> >> >> >to
mandate changes.
mandatting
speed
limits so presumably you were opposed to the last government doing >> >> >> >>the
same
thing (regardless of whether the mandate was increasing or reducing >> >> >> >>speeds).
I'm not against safer speed limits being mandated if there is some
reasonable method for doing so that takes road design and typical
conditions into account. Safety is, after all, the whole reason the >> >> >> >speed limits are there. If the speed limit on a given roads is unsafe >> >> >> >then it kind of defeats the whole point of having it. Worse, giving a >> >> >> >100km/h speed limit to some road might lead drivers to believe that >> >> >> >road
is safer than it really is.
If labour was just throwing darts at a map to pick roads with lower >> >> >> >speed limits, then it is reasonable to undo that. But if Labour
directed
NZTA to ensure speed limits on their roads were safe and if the
method
NZTA used to determine this was reasonable, then I think it is on the >> >> >> >Government to dedicate money to road upgrades if they're dissatisfied >> >> >> >with the new speed limits.
I know two schools that were in 80k limits and that limit still exists >> >> >>a
couple
of hundred meters either side, at 4 oclock in the orning for example. >> >> >>Nonsense.
That resulted directly from the Labour mandates.
I don't believe he has said that. Do you have a cite?
I would have a problem with Simeon Brown forcing Tauranga to raise
the
speed limit in the CBD because this action does nothing but put
motorists who wish to drive fast above the lives of pedestrians,
cyclists and even other motorists. Making such a threat, along with >> >> >> >other actions he has taken, makes it clear he cares little for the
safety of those outside of cars
Sure! Here is an article from April:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/514231/tauranga-s-speed-limit-
proposal-met-with-warning-from-minister
council
that
the idea might not be a good one and might not be in line with future
government policy. That is not a mandate.
"The government's view is that speed limit reductions should be targeted
to high crash areas. As outlined in March, the new speed rule will
reverse blanket speed reductions unless it is unsafe to do so," he said.
"I encourage Tauranga City Council to consider the policy direction for
the new rule that I expect to be in place before the end of the year.
"This will prevent ratepayer money being spent on speed limit changes
now that may need to be changed under the new rule," he said.
So, Simeon Brown was warning Tauranga that if they lowered the speed
limit now, the Governments new policy may force Tauranga to undo it
later making the effort to lower it now a waste of time and ratepayer
money.
He didn't specifically say this was a certainty though - just sowing
doubt, trying to discourage Tauranga from doing what it wants to do. It
remains to be seen if the Government really will force them to undo this
or not. But this makes it clear the Government isn't just targeting
lower speed limits mandated by the previous government - decisions made
by local authorities on their own are in scope too.
He is warning that he may give an instruction later. He is not mandating
a different speed limit, but he is warning that he may mandate a
different speed limit in the future.
Instruction or warning the intent is the same
- to prevent Tauranga fromSee above.
lowering the speed limit. If there was no intent or desire to interfere
with the speed limit decisions of a local authority, there would have
been no need to issue the warning as there would have been nothing to
warn about.
He wishes to go beyond simply rolling back the changes made by Labour,You have provided no evidence of that, you might be correct but I have seen nothing to support it. And if that does happen, then perhaps we should be open-minded enough to evaluate it when we hear what it is. What do you think?
he just hasn't openly committed to it yet. So the only difference
between a warning and an instruction here is Tauranga is free to take
the risk and hope he is bluffing.
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:reductions
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>> >> >says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
says...
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13 Jun 2024 09:17:14 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350310208/speed-limits-120kmh-proposed-government-looks-scrap-other-
No David they are not. I will not debate English with you since clearly you andExactly. An instruction and a warning are not the same thing.So he did not say he would force anything, only that he warned theLabour mandated speed limits 24 hours per day at some schools. That isDoes it? I have not seen proof of that.OK but that does not refute my argument. The last government didBullshit.It remains to be seen whether consultation is, as we have >>> >> >> >> >> >> >seen
In this instance the Minster of transport and Leader of ACT
have
nailed
it.
They are saying what I am hearing from people I have
conversations
with.
They are consulting with the people. The non targeted
approach
of
blanket
rules from the Labour Government are allows an increase in >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>a
disregard
for
the law.
"Blanket restrictions forced on communities from Wellington
didn't
just
make it harder for people to get where they wanted quickly >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>and
safely,
they drained the joy from life as people were forced to >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>follow
rules
they knew made no sense," Regulation Minister David Seymour
said."
"Worse still, people ignore rules that don't make sense and
once
the
habit forms, they ignore rules that do make sense. Sensible
lawmaking
is important for respecting the rule of law."
"The speed limit changes are out for public consultation." >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>This
is a
case
of
if one agrees one should make a submission, to keep things >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>balanced.
Woke nil, common sense 1.
It is a good idea to slow down around schools during dro >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>off
and
pick up
times but no need for the rest of the day and days school >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>is
not
in.
in
other areas, just a way of "freedumb-washing" opinions - >>> >> >> >> >> >> >"you
are
free
to tell us anything you like, but we ultimately have to make
a
decision and we have already decided what those will be." In
many
areas local people would prefer the roads to be safe before >>> >> >> >> >> >> >limits
are
raised. Decisions within local authority boundaries should >>> >> >> >> >> >> >be
left
to
the local Council - that deals adequately with the issue of >>> >> >> >> >> >> >schools,
but ActNat1st have shown that they are prepared to override >>> >> >> >> >> >> >local
authorities which is of course whenever David Seymour
"knows"
that
He
can make better decisions from his Wellington Office -
"Right,"
Gordon?
It was Labour that overruled local authorities and this
government
is
correcting that piece of foolishness.
Your rhetoric knows no bounds.
Some local authorities were setting lower speed limits in
various
zones
(residential streets, CBD, etc) completely on their own before >>> >> >> >> >> >the
previous government was pushing it simply because there are >>> >> >> >> >> >good
reasons
to do this.
For example, in 2012 under the previous National government >>> >> >> >> >> >Hamilton
started lowering speed limits in residential areas to 40km/h. I
don't
remember when speeds were reduced in the CBD but it feels like >>> >> >> >> >> >quite
a
while ago too.
mandate
some
changes, and that is what I said.
Going back to what Rich was saying, that you responded to, it
would
appear that National intends to undo those locally chosen lower >>> >> >> >> >speed
limits in addition to the previous governments mandated lower
speed
limits.
Maybe so, however you appear to be opposed to this government
As a recent example, Tauranga City Council wishes to lower speeds >>> >> >> >> >in
some areas - a local choice not mandated by the previous
government.
Simeon Brown came out saying the Government did not support this >>> >> >> >> >and
the
Governments new speed limit rules could reverse the local
authority's
choice. I believe Tauranga intends to push on regardless and it >>> >> >> >> >remains
to be seen if the Government will follow through on their threat >>> >> >> >> >to
mandate changes.
mandatting
speed
limits so presumably you were opposed to the last government doing >>> >> >> >>the
same
thing (regardless of whether the mandate was increasing or reducing
speeds).
I'm not against safer speed limits being mandated if there is some >>> >> >> >reasonable method for doing so that takes road design and typical >>> >> >> >conditions into account. Safety is, after all, the whole reason the >>> >> >> >speed limits are there. If the speed limit on a given roads is unsafe
then it kind of defeats the whole point of having it. Worse, giving a
100km/h speed limit to some road might lead drivers to believe that >>> >> >> >road
is safer than it really is.
If labour was just throwing darts at a map to pick roads with lower >>> >> >> >speed limits, then it is reasonable to undo that. But if Labour
directed
NZTA to ensure speed limits on their roads were safe and if the
method
NZTA used to determine this was reasonable, then I think it is on the
Government to dedicate money to road upgrades if they're dissatisfied
with the new speed limits.
idiotic,
I know two schools that were in 80k limits and that limit still exists
a
couple
of hundred meters either side, at 4 oclock in the orning for example. >>> >> >>Nonsense.
That resulted directly from the Labour mandates.
I don't believe he has said that. Do you have a cite?
I would have a problem with Simeon Brown forcing Tauranga to raise >>> >> >> >the
speed limit in the CBD because this action does nothing but put
motorists who wish to drive fast above the lives of pedestrians,
cyclists and even other motorists. Making such a threat, along with >>> >> >> >other actions he has taken, makes it clear he cares little for the >>> >> >> >safety of those outside of cars
Sure! Here is an article from April:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/514231/tauranga-s-speed-limit-
proposal-met-with-warning-from-minister
council
that
the idea might not be a good one and might not be in line with future >>> >> government policy. That is not a mandate.
"The government's view is that speed limit reductions should be targeted >>> >to high crash areas. As outlined in March, the new speed rule will
reverse blanket speed reductions unless it is unsafe to do so," he said. >>> >
"I encourage Tauranga City Council to consider the policy direction for >>> >the new rule that I expect to be in place before the end of the year.
"This will prevent ratepayer money being spent on speed limit changes
now that may need to be changed under the new rule," he said.
So, Simeon Brown was warning Tauranga that if they lowered the speed
limit now, the Governments new policy may force Tauranga to undo it
later making the effort to lower it now a waste of time and ratepayer
money.
He didn't specifically say this was a certainty though - just sowing
doubt, trying to discourage Tauranga from doing what it wants to do. It >>> >remains to be seen if the Government really will force them to undo this >>> >or not. But this makes it clear the Government isn't just targeting
lower speed limits mandated by the previous government - decisions made >>> >by local authorities on their own are in scope too.
He is warning that he may give an instruction later. He is not mandating
a different speed limit, but he is warning that he may mandate a
different speed limit in the future.
Instruction or warning the intent is the same
I were differently educated. But on this matter you are incorrect.
- to prevent Tauranga fromSee above.
lowering the speed limit. If there was no intent or desire to interfere >>with the speed limit decisions of a local authority, there would have
been no need to issue the warning as there would have been nothing to
warn about.
You have provided no evidence of that, you might be correct but I have seen >nothing to support it. And if that does happen, then perhaps we should be >open-minded enough to evaluate it when we hear what it is. What do you think?
He wishes to go beyond simply rolling back the changes made by Labour,
he just hasn't openly committed to it yet. So the only difference
between a warning and an instruction here is Tauranga is free to take
the risk and hope he is bluffing.
On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 20:38:38 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>>says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>>> >says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>>> >> >says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
says...
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13 Jun 2024 09:17:14 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> >>>> >> >> >> >> >> >wrote: