Police ticket quotas

[yachtie10]

I am curious to know if the "police quota" system has changed since National has taken power.
Partly due to the fact National criticised it a lot so it would be hypocritical for it to be still in place. But mainly due to it encouraging pedantic and maybe even dishonest policing (not seen the dishonest myself just the pedantic)

I know I am being hopeful but if we can restrict replies to constructive ones from those in the know it would be helpful (this includes you scumdog)

[MIXONE]

Police quotas?
You must be kidding...

[Usarka]

There are no quotas. There are only performance measurements and targets like in any other job.

[yachtie10]

There are no quotas. There are only performance measurements and targets like in any other job.

If you look i have put it in quotes
I know there was no official quota
Question still stands

[MSTRS]

There are no quotas. There are only performance measurements and targets like in any other job.

It's only not a quota in the sense that a quota is a maximum number, not a minimum number...

[rapid van cleef]

hmmmm. UK cops have quota to reach for a certain no. of offences permonth. some go hard out in the first 2 weeks of the month then find a quiet country lane to sit in and chill out. i know this .........fact!

[Ixion]

It is possible to distinguish between quotas and performance measures (though only for one who knows all the details).

If every cop in the snakepit is turning in 70 or 80 tickets a month (just to pluck numbers out of thin air), except for Officer Bumblebee, who is only issuing 10 per month, despite being on the same territory and shifts etc , then Sergeant Snakely is entitled to suspect that Officer Bumblebee is spending too much time at the donut shop , and not enough time snaking. That is a performance measure, Officer Bumblebee is not performing.

But if Sergeant Snakely gathers his men together and tells them that each and everyone of them must up his ticket issuing numbers to a minimum of 100 per month, then that is a quota.

[MSTRS]

explained here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quota)

[yachtie10]

The questions isnt if there is a quota
The question is has the policy changed since national took power
I take it the policy of ticketing anything 11km over the limit is still inplace

[Winston001]

The questions isnt if there is a quota
The question is has the policy changed since national took power


What policy do you mean? The one which requires patrolling police officers to have a certain number of contacts with the public each hour?

[Ixion]

The questions isnt if there is a quota
The question is has the policy changed since national took power
I take it the policy of ticketing anything 11km over the limit is still inplace

Yes. The 10kph "discretion" is unchanged. The real question is how zealous are the Cheeses about making sure that PC Plod and Officer Bumblebee actually ticket everything that they see over 110kph. Some officers have always turned a Nelsonian eye . Are they now at less risk of incurring Sergeant Snakely's wrath therein. There is no way we can know this. It is an internal police matter.

[yachtie10]

What policy do you mean? The one which requires patrolling police officers to have a certain number of contacts with the public each hour?

I mean
before national came to power there were many political arguments in the media about traffic enforement changes by labour (sourcing from parliament)
One of them was putting performance measuremeants for police issuing tickets for traffice offences (called by national quotas)
another was the anything 11 km\h over the limit must be ticketed

I am interested if anything has changed since national is in charge
I suspect nothing has changed because the government needs the money

I hope someone who is working in this area might pass on some knowledge

[red mermaid]

Nothing has changed and the reason for that is Constablary independence, ie: politicians (the government) will not interfere in any police operational matters.

[yachtie10]

Nothing has changed and the reason for that is Constablary independence, ie: politicians (the government) will not interfere in any police operational matters.

thanks for the reply
but the labour goverment put these policies in place so surely the national government can modify them or have rules changed on that

[Ixion]

Not really. The 10kph discretion is a Police operational policy, not a government one.

As the piscine gentlewoman has noted, Ministers will not usually openly meddle with police operations (there have been exceptions). What Ministers *can* do is to intimate to the Commissioner that certain offences should be regarded more or less seriously. That, for instance " We are the government, and we believe that the people want speeding heavily cracked down upon". The Commissioner is not required to take any notice of such an intimation - but if he does not he may find the Minster less accomodating to things that he , in turn,wants. Backs must be mutally scratched.

So the question is not whether the policy has changed, but whether the present Ministers (of Police and Transport) are less "hung up" on speeding than their predecessors. My own opinion, based on nothing whatsoever, other than having met them and noted their comments in the media, is that Ms Collins and Mr Joyce (the latter especially) are somewhat more pragmatic than their predecessors; and probably less likely to take a demanding line about speeding.

How that actually translates into operational policing is not definable. Ultimately a more easy going attitude in the Beehive probably means that Sergeant Snakely makes less fuss about ticket numbers, and Officer Bumblebee feels more able to turn that blind eye. But no-one is going to explicitly state any of that.

[yachtie10]

Not really. The 10kph discretion is a Police operational policy, not a government one.

As the piscine gentlewoman has noted, Ministers will not usually openly meddle with police operations (there have been exceptions). What Ministers *can* do is to intimate to the Commissioner that certain offences should be regarded more or less seriously. That, for instance " We are the government, and we believe that the people want speeding heavily cracked down upon". The Commissioner is not required to take any notice of such an intimation - but if he does not he may find the Minster less accomodating to things that he , in turn,wants. Backs must be mutally scratched.

So the question is not whether the policy has changed, but whether the present Ministers (of Police and Transport) are less "hung up" on speeding than their predecessors. My own opinion, based on nothing whatsoever, other than having met them and noted their comments in the media, is that Ms Collins and Mr Joyce (the latter especially) are somewhat more pragmatic than their predecessors; and probably less likely to take a demanding line about speeding.

How that actually translates into operational policing is not definable. Ultimately a more easy going attitude in the Beehive probably means that Sergeant Snakely makes less fuss about ticket numbers, and Officer Bumblebee feels more able to turn that blind eye. But no-one is going to explicitly state any of that.

Your starting to sound like a politician
of course you make valid points
I still think the question is vaild
another example is that speed cameras used to ticket the top 15% of speeders (Ithink thats right) when the labour governement came in that was changed.
If you are correct then there is no point of parliament or us discussing as its all up to the police (you could be right there)

[FJRider]

There are no quotas. There are only performance measurements and targets like in any other job.

Yep ... measurements in kilometers, and WE are the target ...

[Ixion]

Your starting to sound like a politician
of course you make valid points
I still think the question is vaild
another example is that speed cameras used to ticket the top 15% of speeders (Ithink thats right) when the labour governement came in that was changed.
If you are correct then there is no point of parliament or us discussing as its all up to the police (you could be right there)

The point is valid, but it is not a questiopn of the policy changinging. rather it is Sergeant S saying "Officer Bumblebee, you've more important things to do than sit round all day in the squad car to hand out a couple of speeding tickets" : rather than "Officer Bumblebee , I want EVERY speeding driver ticketed, no exceptions, no excuses, or else".

I'm not sure about the speed camera one. Certainly when they were introduced we were told that they would only snap the fastest 15%. And now they don't. Whether that was the politicians lying or the police I'm not sure.

[Usarka]

As they say in Italy - I quota you, you kiss'a my fathers'a meatballs while fingerin his'a fettucini.

[kwaka_crasher]

I quite like the 11km/h 'must issue ticket' and 3 contacts per hour mentality because it means that usually when I come along at 130km/h they're already busy with a 'customer' who was sprung at 114km/h in a 100km/h zone not harrassing me.

[Berries]

:laugh: I'd never looked at it that way before.

[steve_t]

I quite like the 11km/h 'must issue ticket' and 3 contacts per hour mentality because it means that usually when I come along at 130km/h they're already busy with a 'customer' who was sprung at 114km/h in a 100km/h zone not harrassing me.

LOL. It's so true. How many times do u cruise past a cop car and they're already busy with someone else? I'm highly dubious of the "must ticket over 11km/h over" but am told the 3 contacts per hour policy still stands. 3 contacts per hour isn't really a lot. The must ticket for speed myth got dispelled by the girl that used to work for me that got told to "slow down pretty eyes" by the cop who clocked her at 140km/h. I guess cops are human too.

[Usarka]

The must ticket for speed myth got dispelled by the girl that used to work for me that got told to "slow down pretty eyes" by the cop who clocked her at 140km/h. I guess cops are human too.

Right, so a good looking woman gets off a speeding ticket with the worst come-on line I've ever heard, and you think that proves it? :killingme

[MSTRS]

LOL. It's so true. How many times do u cruise past a cop car and they're already busy with someone else? I'm highly dubious of the "must ticket over 11km/h over" but am told the 3 contacts per hour policy still stands. 3 contacts per hour isn't really a lot. The must ticket for speed myth got dispelled by the girl that used to work for me that got told to "slow down pretty eyes" by the cop who clocked her at 140km/h. I guess cops are human too.

You missed the bit about him doing up his fly...

[CookMySock]

Why not just put a GPS tracking unit on the patrol cars? Then the boss can see exactly where they were all day, how often they moved, and every other damn thing about them.

Steve

[steve_t]

Right, so a good looking woman gets off a speeding ticket with the worst come-on line I've ever heard, and you think that proves it? :killingme

Oh yeah, and it was about a week prior to this that I got ticketed for doing 111km/h in a 100 zone. I know HEAPS of chicks that have been let off speeding tickets with warnings. Oh well, thems the breaks for being a guy.
Sorry, what do I think has been proven?

[vifferman]

So the question is not whether the policy has changed, but whether the present Ministers (of Police and Transport) are less "hung up" on speeding than their predecessors.
I understood that the 'performance targets' had to do with ACC funding the Police to improve road safety (and thereby reduce claim ACC costs) and requiring the police to show that they were actually using the funding effectively, by producing summary reports showing the number of 'contacts' made.
Unfortunately, some simpleton statisticians somewhere decided it was as simple as focusing on speeding, seatbelts and drink driving to reduce the road toll and injuries. Moreover, with the possible exception of seatbelts, these are the easiest things to police, because they require virtually no thinking. Driving around with the pingy thing on, or sitting on the side of the road with the hairdryer out the window, or setting up a checkpoint and checking everyone is all it takes.

Unfortunately, none of these address the real iissue, which is shit driving caused by shit attitudes. And the public generally knows that the focus on speeding is bogus because the speed limits are illogical and arbitrary (like, if it's deemed safe to travel at 100km/h on a narrow dual carriageway with corners, why is the motorway also restricted to 100?). So, Joe Public resents what is seen as an example of wasted police resources and an unfair focus on only one aspect of driving, and the attitudes don't change, and the driving standards as a whole continue to fall. It also means that the public resent the police, who are only doing their jobs (albeit in what is an unintelligent and ineffective way), and continue to drive badly while keeping an eye out for speed cameras and cops with laser/radar units.

I don't have a problem with the police issuing tickets for speeding. However, it galls me that they are focusing on it while ignoring other things, like failing to indicate, following too closely, failing to give way or stop, etc. They also don't don't temper their speed policing with a bit of pragmatism. After Christmas, when D'Auckland motorways were lightly trafficked, several times I saw cops just sitting on the side of the road with a laser out the window. So what?
If people are going to work or wherever, and there's bugger all traffic on the motorway, so what if they do 115 or even 120, if the traffic's flowing nicely and people are driving OK? If everyone's doing 95, and somebody's weaving in and out at 112, then that's different. The other lack of pragmatism is the seeming intent to "ticket no matter what", that sees a cop car screaming along through traffic at whatever maximum speed they're allowed to travel at, forcing other law-abiding motorists to get out of the way the best they can, just to hand out one ticket for a minor offence. Which causes the most danger to safe motoring: someone passing safely and momentarily exceeding the speed limit, or ensuring that the offence doesn't go unpunished?
At least the Gubmint has realised public opinion is agin it as far as this goes, as witnessed by the recent news item decrying the number of deaths and injuries caused by police pursuit. Hopefully, instead of PC Plod going, "Awriiiight!! An opportunity to put the pedal to the metal and liven up my shift a bit, he/she will think first.
But probably not.
[/rant]

[peasea]

Excellent post, have some bling.

[kwaka_crasher]

Shame they don't have the same quotas for the catchng of burglars...


Excellent post, have some bling.
Ditto. Sorry that it doesn't carry much weight! :lol:

[Spearfish]

Lousy Cop


Well Mr. Citizen, I guess you have figured me out. I seem to fit neatly into the category you place me in. I'm stereotyped, characterized, standardized, classified, grouped, and always typical. I'm the "lousy" cop.

Unfortunately, the reverse isn't true. I can never figure you out.

From birth you teach your children that I am a person to be wary of...and then you're shocked when they identify me with my traditional enemy, the criminal.

You accuse me of coddling juvenile criminals, until I catch your kid doing something.

You may take an hour for lunch and several coffee breaks each day, but point me out as a loafer if you see me having just one cup.

You pride yourself on your polished manners, but think nothing of interrupting my meals with your troubles.

You raise hell about the guy who cuts you off in traffic, but let me catch you doing the same thing and I'm picking on you.

You know all the traffic laws, but never got one ticket you deserved.

You shout "Foul!" if you observe me driving fast enroute to an emergency call, but literally raise hell if I take more than ten seconds responding to your call.

You call it "part of my job" if someone strikes me. But its "police brutality" if I strike back.

You wouldn't think of telling your dentist how to pull a badly decayed tooth, or your doctor how to take out your appendix, but you are always willing to give me pointers on law enforcement.

You talk to me in a manner and use language that would assure a bloody nose from anyone else, but you expect me to stand there and take it without batting an eye.

You cry, "Something has to be done about all the crime!" but you can't be bothered with getting involved.

You've got no use for me at all, but, of course, it's OK if I change a tire for your wife, deliver your baby in the back seat of my patrol car on the way to the hospital, save your son's life with mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, or work many hours overtime to find your lost daughter.

So, Dear Citizen, you stand there on your soapbox and rant and rave about the way I do my job, calling me every name in the book, but never stop a minute to think that your property, your family, or maybe your life might depend on one thing - me, or one of my buddies.

Yes, me, the lousy cop.

- Author unknown

[kwaka_crasher]

Well Mr. Citizen, I guess you have figured me out. I seem to fit neatly into the category you place me in. I'm stereotyped, characterized, standardized, classified, grouped and always typical. I'm the "lousy" cop.
Only you can change public perception... besides, the claim is quite ironic considering the rant the poem goes into below... stereotype much?


Unfortunately, the reverse isn't true. I can never figure you out.
If only you'd admit that in court instead of MAKING SHIT UP!


From birth you teach your children that I am a person to be wary of...and then you're shocked when they identify me with my traditional enemy, the criminal.
Teaching the use of caution in dealings with any authority who can level baseless allegations against you with immediate consequences is very wise.


You accuse me of coddling juvenile criminals, until I catch your kid doing something.
I'd be happy for you to just kick their arses like you used to be able!


You may take an hour for lunch and several coffee breaks each day, but point me out as a
loafer if you see me having just one cup.
2L is not a cup! :bleh:


You pride yourself on your polished manners, but think nothing of interrupting my meals with your troubles.
Take that issue up with your union or your bosses.


You raise hell about the guy who cuts you off in traffic, but let me catch you doing the same thing and I'm picking on you.
I'm just surprised you noticed me because I wasn't speeding...


You know all the traffic laws, but never got one ticket you deserved.
What's the other rules aside from don't exceed the posted arbitrary speed limit? :scratch:


You shout "Foul!" if you observe me driving fast enroute to an emergency call, but literally raise hell if I take more than ten seconds responding to your call.
Sorry. I was already in bed - it was 3am after all and I did call at 2pm to report that burglar leaving with my stuff... historic my arse!


You call it "part of my job" if someone strikes me. But its "police brutality" if I strike back.
Ever heard of reasonable force?


You wouldn't think of telling your dentist how to pull a badly decayed tooth, or your doctor how to take out your appendix, but you are always willing to give me pointers on law enforcement.
The standards are much higher standard to become a Dr or Dentist, but regardless if I thought they were fucking up I'd say something. Just because you have a warrant doesn't make you infallible.


You talk to me in a manner and use language that would assure a bloody nose from anyone else, but you expect me to stand there and take it without batting an eye.
If you think you're going to speak to me like a small stupid child you're going to get treated like a fuckwit.


You cry, "Something has to be done about all the crime!" but you can't be bothered with getting involved.
Unlike you we're not virtually immune to prosecution if we get physically involved, nor does anyone who caves our head in get a charge of "Assaulting Police". In fact you have prosecuted people for doing what's right that may have not been striclty legal, costing much time and money for them to defend. Ever heard of Greg Carvell or Paul McIntyre?


You've got no use for me at all, but, of course, it's OK if I change a tire for your wife, deliver your baby in the back seat of my patrol car on the way to the hospital, save your son's life with mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, or work many hours overtime to find your lost daughter.
It's your job! :violin:


So, Dear Citizen, you stand there on your soapbox and rant and rave about the way I do my job, calling me every name in the book, but never stop a minute to think that your property, your family, or maybe your life might depend on one thing - me, or one of my buddies.
There's a BOOK?! As for the property bit... don't make me :rofl:

[SixPackBack]

I understood that the 'performance targets' had to do with ACC funding the Police to improve road safety (and thereby reduce claim ACC costs) and requiring the police to show that they were actually using the funding effectively, by producing summary reports showing the number of 'contacts' made.
Unfortunately, some simpleton statisticians somewhere decided it was as simple as focusing on speeding, seatbelts and drink driving to reduce the road toll and injuries. Moreover, with the possible exception of seatbelts, these are the easiest things to police, because they require virtually no thinking. Driving around with the pingy thing on, or sitting on the side of the road with the hairdryer out the window, or setting up a checkpoint and checking everyone is all it takes.

Unfortunately, none of these address the real iissue, which is shit driving caused by shit attitudes. And the public generally knows that the focus on speeding is bogus because the speed limits are illogical and arbitrary (like, if it's deemed safe to travel at 100km/h on a narrow dual carriageway with corners, why is the motorway also restricted to 100?). So, Joe Public resents what is seen as an example of wasted police resources and an unfair focus on only one aspect of driving, and the attitudes don't change, and the driving standards as a whole continue to fall. It also means that the public resent the police, who are only doing their jobs (albeit in what is an unintelligent and ineffective way), and continue to drive badly while keeping an eye out for speed cameras and cops with laser/radar units.

I don't have a problem with the police issuing tickets for speeding. However, it galls me that they are focusing on it while ignoring other things, like failing to indicate, following too closely, failing to give way or stop, etc. They also don't don't temper their speed policing with a bit of pragmatism. After Christmas, when D'Auckland motorways were lightly trafficked, several times I saw cops just sitting on the side of the road with a laser out the window. So what?
If people are going to work or wherever, and there's bugger all traffic on the motorway, so what if they do 115 or even 120, if the traffic's flowing nicely and people are driving OK? If everyone's doing 95, and somebody's weaving in and out at 112, then that's different. The other lack of pragmatism is the seeming intent to "ticket no matter what", that sees a cop car screaming along through traffic at whatever maximum speed they're allowed to travel at, forcing other law-abiding motorists to get out of the way the best they can, just to hand out one ticket for a minor offence. Which causes the most danger to safe motoring: someone passing safely and momentarily exceeding the speed limit, or ensuring that the offence doesn't go unpunished?
At least the Gubmint has realised public opinion is agin it as far as this goes, as witnessed by the recent news item decrying the number of deaths and injuries caused by police pursuit. Hopefully, instead of PC Plod going, "Awriiiight!! An opportunity to put the pedal to the metal and liven up my shift a bit, he/she will think first.
But probably not.
[/rant]


Superlative rant, and oh so true.

[Spearfish]

Only you can change public perception... besides, the claim is quite ironic considering the rant the poem goes into below... stereotype much?


If only you'd admit that in court instead of MAKING SHIT UP!


Teaching the use of caution in dealings with any authority who can level baseless allegations against you with immediate consequences is very wise.


I'd be happy for you to just kick their arses like you used to be able!


2L is not a cup! :bleh:


Take that issue up with your union or your bosses.


I'm just surprised you noticed me because I wasn't speeding...


What's the other rules aside from don't exceed the posted arbitrary speed limit? :scratch:


Sorry. I was already in bed - it was 3am after all and I did call at 2pm to report that burglar leaving with my stuff... historic my arse!


Ever heard of reasonable force?


The standards are much higher standard to become a Dr or Dentist, but regardless if I thought they were fucking up I'd say something. Just because you have a warrant doesn't make you infallible.


If you think you're going to speak to me like a small stupid child you're going to get treated like a fuckwit.


Unlike you we're not virtually immune to prosecution if we get physically involved, nor does anyone who caves our head in get a charge of "Assaulting Police". In fact you have prosecuted people for doing what's right that may have not been striclty legal, costing much time and money for them to defend. Ever heard of Greg Carvell or Paul McIntyre?


It's your job! :violin:


There's a BOOK?! As for the property bit... don't make me :rofl:



I'm not a cop.
Its summer, get out from under your cloud and get some good miles done.

[kwaka_crasher]

I'm not a cop.
Its summer, get out from under your cloud and get some good miles done.

It was aimed at the author, not you...

[Spearfish]

It was aimed at the author, not you...

No problem.

[Skyryder]

There has been a long running debate on this issue for some time so lets try and determine just exactly what a quota is. The police and others maintain that quotas and performance are separate and are not the same. This is true. There is a difference.

While the over all employment performance is based on many factors, the issuing of tickets becomes a quota when there is an expectation that an individual is bound to contribute a certain number of infringements within a defined time period. This I believe is what most of us understand a quota to be in relation to the issuing of traffic notices. The quota can be loosely applied within a specified parameter and I believe this is where the denial of quotas comes from.

We can of course start playing with words and call this public contact, targts etc. but the fact remains that there is an expected return in dollars from the investments that is put into road and highway patrols. I don’t have time at the moment to go into the funding of this but I understand some is from ACC and the LTNZ. However I digress.

The dictionary defines a quota as a part of a total that is given or received. It’s a percentage. So if I am correct in my interpretation that there are quotas where is the total?

There are X number of officers on duty at any given period of the day. We know that there is an expectation of a given number of public contacts within a specified time frame. There may well be some variation from region to region and from one time of the day to another, even from individual commanders or assessors of performance but over all there is a total number of ‘public contacts’ (the whole) from the total number of officers on duty. The expectation that each officer is bound to have X number of public contacts within a specified time frame is a quota. The quota may not be ridgdly enforced but that makes it no less of a quota.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary. QUOTA. The share that an individual person or company is bound to contribute to or entitled to receive from a total.

This definition alludes directly to the performance of an officer in relation to the number of his public contacts of which he is bound to issue for his performance parameters when said officer is being assessed. So according to the definition of the Oxford Concise Dictionary which states in part……………is bound to contribute…………….and that an officers performance is assessed by the number of ‘public contacts’ within a defined time frame there are quotas that are expected or bound on his part to contribute by way of the issuing of traffic infringements.

Of course if there is no performance based assessments on an officers ‘public contact the above is all null and void.

So the question is……………are public contacts part of an officer’s assessments for their performance in carrying out their duties?

Oh the other question has the policy changed? I got one the other day so I doubt it.:angry2:

Skyryder

[Spearfish]

How can someone who is largely sole charge be assed in performance without actually measuring what they do and setting minimums.
If speeding tickets are all they are judged on then why would they bother going to any other jobs?
imagine the cops that go to the general jobs having quotas on domestics? any other assault jobs would be binned, it just doesn't happen.

Probably should be pissed at BOI racers, they are what motivated the GOVT to harden up and change the rules. Even to the point of crushing a bike!