Police blast speed cameras.

[JMemonic]

Just buy yourself a radar detector and it doesn't matter what uniform or not the guy sitting in the speed camera van is wearing....the detector goes off and without fail...you check your speed...same affect isn't it?

Actually the issue of fines has never been my problem, time and place kinda thing, but then I ride like a nana now days, just ask the the Christchurch Wednesday night group. I feel 100Km/h is fast enough in most cases as NZ roads are not suitable for faster speeds. I may need a radar detector in the future with a new bike who knows.

My whole point is and has been having our Police force required to meet a quota of hours solely on traffic enforcement in the guise of safety is not the best usage of resources, or have we the public been misinformed about the LTSA requiring auditing from police as to hours in this area.

The start of the thread was again, Police in Victoria feeling that speed cameras, and red light cameras are nothing more than revenue collection to which I agreed, a fine 1 month after the event did not in anyway reduce the potential for an accident that may have caused death. I also stated I like red light cameras but would like to see them take photos from both the front and rear of the vehicle and these be used to identify the driver where possible, the driver is then given a walking ticket and re-educated in the distinction of colours, as it would appear from my observation and those of others on site that this practice is becoming more frequent.

I must remember though that what I consider to be a good idea would to some be seen as fascist hell why cant they run red lights, it hurts no one and everyone stops for them, that is until someone gets killed.

[roogazza]

Welcome to KB, Ting Tong!

Tingtong would have to be very young, newly graduated or both ?
He'll mellow ! G.

[swbarnett]

I must remember though that what I consider to be a good idea would to some be seen as fascist hell why cant they run red lights, it hurts no one and everyone stops for them, that is until someone gets killed.

In principle I agree with you - red-light running Is dangerous and down right disrespectful of other road users. However, I'm not convinced that red light cameras are the answer.

The way I see it this issue has two parts - extending the green (i.e. the runner has just had the green and thinks they can scoot through before the opposing traffic has their green) and ignoring the lights all together (opposing traffic has had the green for a while.

I don't believe that the latter happens very often (at least from my own observations). I think it is the former that is the real problem.

Before they throw red light cameras everywhere and give us more fodder for the revenue gathering debate I'd like to see the gap between greens removed completely. At present the red-light runner has been given a safety margin of "a couple of seconds" where they think they can get away with it. If the two opposing lights changed simultaneously people would get to know very quickly when their safety window ends - when their light goes red (forgive me if I'm a bit slow but isn't that what a red light is supposed to mean? - "Do not proceed as it is dangerous to do so"). No more will people be en mass thinking "I can make that, I've got an extra second or two" and completely misjudge the time required to clear the intersection.

[JMemonic]

In principle I agree with you - red-light running Is dangerous and down right disrespectful of other road users. However, I'm not convinced that red light cameras are the answer.

The way I see it this issue has two parts - extending the green (i.e. the runner has just had the green and thinks they can scoot through before the opposing traffic has their green) and ignoring the lights all together (opposing traffic has had the green for a while.

I don't believe that the latter happens very often (at least from my own observations). I think it is the former that is the real problem.

Before they throw red light cameras everywhere and give us more fodder for the revenue gathering debate I'd like to see the gap between greens removed completely. At present the red-light runner has been given a safety margin of "a couple of seconds" where they think they can get away with it. If the two opposing lights changed simultaneously people would get to know very quickly when their safety window ends - when their light goes red (forgive me if I'm a bit slow but isn't that what a red light is supposed to mean? - "Do not proceed as it is dangerous to do so"). No more will people be en mass thinking "I can make that, I've got an extra second or two" and completely misjudge the time required to clear the intersection.

You raise very valid points and well thought out solutions, you are correct in what a red light means and I like your thinking, now the hard part is to get the powers that be to see it that way.

Nice to see someone putting thought into these things.

[SixPackBack]

And an extra 3 quid has been built into each of the Gatso fines to compensate for those destroyed ones - a win-win eh??

Social disobedience is a firm warning to the government and Police force. A dollar value is of no importance.

[jaykay]

Red light cameras cause crashes, some drivers panic brake and there is a tendency for more rear enders. Red light runners should only be dealt with by real police. (research done in the US).

If there were demerit points for speed cameras the Police would actually have to know who was driving - and it would have to be an offence to refuse to name the driver. However if the police wished to question you about an alleged offence they would have to caution you first - and you don't have to answer any questions. So the problem is neatly sidestepped by an "owner liability". Hence an owner is deemed liable to pay a speed camera fine even if out of the country (if his vehicle gets a ticket). Hence tickets through the post are only about revenue raising, and nothing to do with road safety. (Also bear in mind speed camera evidence is almost useless, the only evidence the police really have is when the fine is paid)

[scumdog]

[QUOTE=jaykay;1536743]Red light cameras cause crashes, some drivers panic brake and there is a tendency for more rear enders. Red light runners should only be dealt with by real police. (research done in the US).

Hence tickets through the post are only about revenue raising, and nothing to do with road safety.

Who cares when it's losers paying for the tickets? - they're generally of the ilk of those who learn nothing anyway, they're the type that will pay again and again throughout their lives for similar idiocy...

[Swoop]

And an extra 3 quid has been built into each of the Gatso fines to compensate for those destroyed ones - a win-win eh??

With dedication to their work, using many different skills and approaches, we look forward to the day when the level is raised to 9quid!

[RDJ]

not to redirect the thread but as quoted from an earlier post:

".... comment in regards to fingerprinting, only about 24% of burglaries attended actually yield any fingerprints or other useful forensic evidence. Many complainants insist there will be fingerprints here or there, (too much CSI crap on TV), but experience tells us that if prints aren't found at the point of entry they are seldom found anywhere else inside a burglary scene. ""

ummm... if in one quarter of a particular crime's total you could positively identify the perpetrator, and on the basis of the proven 'broken windows' effect on improving life for the rest of us, it seems very difficult to understand / justify why every burglary should not be approached looking for forensic evidence. A 25% success rate in providing a solution in practically any other field of endeavour would be regarded as highly significant and worth the investment. Or have I misinterpreted / misrepresented the situation?

[scumdog]

not to redirect the thread but as quoted from an earlier post:

".... comment in regards to fingerprinting, only about 24% of burglaries attended actually yield any fingerprints or other useful forensic evidence. Many complainants insist there will be fingerprints here or there, (too much CSI crap on TV), but experience tells us that if prints aren't found at the point of entry they are seldom found anywhere else inside a burglary scene. ""

ummm... if in one quarter of a particular crime's total you could positively identify the perpetrator, Or have I misinterpreted / misrepresented the situation?

The fingerprints are only ever any good if they're left by a crim whose fingerprints are already recorded - likewise DNA.

So yes, at some stage it MAY identify the burglar - but if there's no sample of his fingerprints/DNA held then he'll never get identified.

And personally I'm surprised the percentage is as high as 24%, in my experience it's alot less - thanks a fair bit to all those CSI/Crime type TV programmes that show how crims get caught - they teach crims how NOT to get caught too.

[JMemonic]

And personally I'm surprised the percentage is as high as 24%, in my experience it's alot less - thanks a fair bit to all those CSI/Crime type TV programmes that show how crims get caught - they teach crims how NOT to get caught too.

Ok a little off topic but hey it is KB and that's the norm, but I have often wondered about that, not so much CSI but some of those shows on Discovery and that new crime channel, sure most of the cases shown are 10 years or so old but still.

[Coldrider]

The company I work for received a letter yesterday from NZ Police, an employee who has paid a speed camera fine twice (company car). They are to send a refund. Now if fines are to get through to people to not speed, what is it to someone who has paid twice for the one infringement, it obviously was water of a ducks back.

[spudchucka]

not to redirect the thread but as quoted from an earlier post:

".... comment in regards to fingerprinting, only about 24% of burglaries attended actually yield any fingerprints or other useful forensic evidence. Many complainants insist there will be fingerprints here or there, (too much CSI crap on TV), but experience tells us that if prints aren't found at the point of entry they are seldom found anywhere else inside a burglary scene. ""

ummm... if in one quarter of a particular crime's total you could positively identify the perpetrator, and on the basis of the proven 'broken windows' effect on improving life for the rest of us, it seems very difficult to understand / justify why every burglary should not be approached looking for forensic evidence. A 25% success rate in providing a solution in practically any other field of endeavour would be regarded as highly significant and worth the investment. Or have I misinterpreted / misrepresented the situation?

Ahhh, the old misquoted quote story. You need the full picture.

About 25% of burglaries attended yield some form of positive forensic evidence, of the 25% only about 20 - 30% result in a positive ID. Quite often the prints are either the complainants, the crim isn't in the system yet or they just aren't clear enough to get a match in AFIS.

Then you also need to take into account the current legal definitions of burglary. Up until a couple of years ago a burglary had to be to an actual dwelling and there had to be a "break", which meant if you went out and left your ranchslider door open and somebody pinched your TV then it wasn't a burglary it was a theft ex dwelling.

Now, since the crimes act amendment, a burglary is simply "entering a building without authority and with intent to commit a crime there in". No break is required but the interesting thing is the definition of building that has been changed to include a yard. So now every time a lawn mower gets pinched from somebody's back yard or their car port its called a burglary and such an incident does not present anywhere near the same forensic opportunity as a house burglary in which they have forced entry and spent time rummaging around the property.

Further back in the thread you might also notice where I said that in the area I work in the big boss expects 100% attendance at burglaries, which includes all the insecure garden sheds etc that wouldn't have ever been considered a burglary under the old crimes act.

[spudchucka]

And personally I'm surprised the percentage is as high as 24%, in my experience it's alot less - thanks a fair bit to all those CSI/Crime type TV programmes that show how crims get caught - they teach crims how NOT to get caught too.

I was talking burglary only, theft ex cars run at about 2%.

CSI is a pain in the arse.

[Sanx]

What do you think traffic cops do? we are dedicated traffic officers who ARE real cops and not just to enforce traffic. The old days werent good as the old traffic cops werent allowed to deal with REAL crime as you put it. Have you ever had to deal with a fatal where speeding was an issue? have you ever had to inform the family of a death and see the life drain out of their eyes? How often does someone die as a result of a burglary or theft, the real crimes you speak of?? Luckily you dont have to deal with all of this, we do! its nice to sit in your warm home bitching about everything but you would soon change your tune should you have to deal with all of the mayhem that drivers and riders cause! and not just to the drivers or riders more importantly to the innocent law abiding members of society. If i have to issue a ticket to every single person in the country and it saves one life then i have done my job, others wont see it my way but i really hate dealing with these deaths, they ARE avoidable its just the standard or driving and riding in this country is crap! and its everyone elses fault but yours, especially when you get a ticket for something you know you were doing!!!

Ah you taking the piss, or are you really that obscenely stupid? At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, you'd have done very well in Nazi Germany, where a pre-requisite of doing well was the ability to mentally ingesting vast amounts of propaganda without it touching those areas of the brain that contain logic and reason. I can honestly say I haven't read anything quite so dense and mindless on this forum in a long time (and no, I don't have skidMark blocked).

The points I would normally raise have been covered in detail by others, so there's no point going into them. In fact, there wouldn't be any point going into them anyway, as you're obviously mentally unequipped to deal with a rational discussion.