Tuesday, July 16, 2024
11.2 C


My Account

- Advertisement -

Balancing the cost with the risk

Mr Peterson appears to have misunderstood my letter, and through that lack of understanding, he then accuses me of making a false claim.

My claim was this: [an excerpt taken from my previous letter) “Air resistance, which the writer mentions, is but one factor of economics when it comes to motor vehicles. Other factors include driving style, variation in driving speed, tire rolling resistance, road surface and a fair few other factors. As a result, the fuel-saving when driving at 80kmh vs 100kmh is tiny compared with the total cost of driving so slowly.” And: “The cost to the economy, in driving time, when the whole country is forced to slow down is somewhere between $0.5 and $1.3 billion per year, when accounting for the cost of travel time. For rural light vehicle travel alone, the cost is almost $450 million.”

The material I supplied to the Times Age, along with my letter, provided information about the savings made by driving faster in quite some detail. Mr Peterson makes the claim that driving at 120kmh uses 20 per cent more fuel than driving at 100kmh. That is incorrect. The actual figure is approximately 12.5 per cent. Going from 80kmh to 120kmh is approximately 22 per cent additional petrol cost. But, it’s irrelevant in any event, because the overall cost of travel is lower at 120kmh than 100kmh or 80kmh because time is money, as I pointed out in my previous letter.

As a result, the cost to the economy, of driving 80kmh rather than 100kmh per hour is approximately 20 per cent higher. Fuel savings pale to insignificance when the total cost of travel time and factors other than simply fuel cost are considered.

Mr Peterson further misconstrues my statement by proposing that drivers may, as a result of my letter, choose to drive 120kmh to save money. I clearly said that: “…but we must, of course, balance cost with risk, hence the long-established speed limit of 100kmh.”

Mark J Jerling


Seeds sown

Australians voted against giving their indigenous folk more say at a political level. This is a lesson for those who think the majority are not biased against the minority.

New Zealand, sadly, is now following suit, albeit using a different tactic. I think the Act Party, who will be a powerhouse in the new coalition government, will lead the charge in removing Maori rights, and other things that promote the language etc. Act says they are for unification, not separatism. The reality is simply that the right-of-centre are afraid of losing control of many things, such as water usage and land in some areas of the country. Consultation has, under Labour, become normal, to the distaste of many on the right.

National could say that they have to let Act have their way because it is their bottom line.

Luxon and others have stated that they want foreign investment in land, housing and roads etc. And they need to remove any barriers that may hinder this.

Maori and others who feel that New Zealand is not for sale should be very afraid. One only has to look at our close neighbours in the Pacific. Chinese investment doesn’t come cheap. Yes, some at the top are made to feel important and live a nicer life . But the country loses control and is forever in the debt of a foreign power whose only aim is to spread their power base in the Pacific. This comes at a huge cost to all.

I hope we don’t follow Australia and sell our souls to the devil. But I fear the seeds are already sown.

Our minority indigenous, and indeed all New Zealanders, should be afraid.

Richard Dahlberg



  1. I wouldn’t call Australians idiots or racist people 🙄. I’m sorry but I don’t agree with you about indigenous interpretation we are one.

Comments are closed.

Roger Parker
Roger Parker
Roger Parker is the Times-Age news director. In the Venn-diagram of his two great loves, news and sport, sports news is the sweet spot.

Related Articles

- Advertisement -
clear sky
11.2 ° C
11.2 °
10.5 °
96 %
7 %
11 °
13 °
12 °
15 °
11 °