Invite - 2nd protest against police pursuits today

[candor]

Midday National Police HQ, Molesworth St where Collins is talking of a tough penalty not modernisation. Our demonic policy would see courts overseass that fairly weight facts allow negligence judgements on many trauma cases here.

Why impaired driving victims have rolling police pursuit protests
Police pursuits are all round doing irreparable harm but are especially racist in impacts on fugitives and innocent people (more harm to Maori than others). The Police Minister has ignored our bereaved Wahine campaign recommending proven tactics to stop the killing.

She’s today discussing a loser strategy of tougher penalties for runners. After a cops death (2006) New York provided 15 year terms without effect. It’s 3-5 in NSW’s Skye law– criticized by the Law Society as longer than sentences for careless driving causing death, despite no victim
We want prevention of the harm not blame-shifting then hang up on the conversation, Police have seen 3 MoT reviews showing their rising quotas bumped trauma up, but took advice from the Transport Ministry saying to ignore the trial results and try to believe in the system.

Understanding that the safety problem in blue robbing us of life

Before 2003 (road safeties doomsday as ACC crash claims debt has tripled to 7B since) NZ Police averaged involvement with an average of 1-2 deaths from chases each of the prior 7 years –that’s a typical and respectable batting average.

Then in 2003 boy racer laws were passed and the Police began to operate entirely by a new computerized quota system, a “trial” called RAM putting high demands for catching speeders and drunks.

At this point chase numbers began rising from 500 odd yearly to now exceed 2000 every year. Areas like the 4 Aves turned hunting grounds with bulk nosey stops logged.
Police keener to chase (4x keener after 2002)….gulp

So between 2002-2008 about 500 runners were killed or injured - 293 innocent persons were harmed. After the RAM quota system roll out we’ve seen Police chase mayhem rise to cause 2% of the toll. UK Police contribute to only 1 chase death per 1.5 million population yearly – but we’ve reached 3-4 x that

Unsurprising given Police engage in 4x the chases (per capita) of the UK, Queensland & safety valuing places. Since the ticket hunt stated Police have no time to attend crimes. Police are making their own unique contribution to a decline is road safety giving us the top death risk per kilometer travelled of any OECD citizen!
“The popular accusation that road policing only exists to provide the Government with revenue is difficult to dispute in the absence of evidence that variation in enforcement as effect on road safety outcomes” (AA)

[candor]

Polices justifications for having open slather to chase anyone
1. If we let them go they’ll run more often and anarchy will reign
Reality – In Orlando when Police were stopped from chasing over traffic offences runner numbers stayed the same at one in four hundred (100 ran, 40,000 stopped). ~~~~But now no-one got killed~~~~.
2. Pursuits of traffic offenders make the roads safer, because they’d likely have crashed so we’d best try and pull them over

Reality –If we believe most Police chases are justified on road safety grounds we’re mistaken. Repeated research (Alpert, Miinne, Crew) proves the odds of identified traffic offenders crashing hugely increase with Police are on their tail. Top cops know chasing impaired drivers is dumb as.
A crash on any given impaired driving trip is not likely, but the statistical odds increase immeasurably under chase pressure. A chase inquiry in Queensland this year (which already has tighter policy than our lax one) recommended banning pursuits of suspected drunk or drug drivers. At a 0.144 pursuit crash risk they’re most risky to chase.

“The only thing more dangerous than a drunk driver is one being chased (Professor Alpert who spoke on Radio NZ lately). Alcohol was suspected in 45% of injurious “evading enforcement” crashes in between 2002-8 (Transport Registry). Clearly NZ Police are placing mugs bets having forgotten vows to protect life
~~~If Prosecutors are to attach heavy penalties to runners who cause trauma they must also look to the co-offenders in the form of Police, who give chase of traffic twits in flagrant disregard of solid evidence this raises risks to the Public
Maori and youth are worst hit by harm from chase mania
120,000 learners license breaches occurred last year as Police staked out the youth driver hang outs and put checkpoints where “money’s not a problem” for the VIP “y’all come back” repeat offenders – but NZ has the HIGHEST recorded 'road deaths per 100,000 population' risk among 15 to 17 year olds. The Maori youth demographic is big and Maori at 16% of Kiwis have 4 x others risk of chase injury

Table 4 Casualties (killed & injured) in ''Evading Enforcement' crashes by Ethnicity, 2002 to 2008
Ethnicity Fatal Serious Minor Non Injury Total
Asian 0 3 13 10 26
European 11 44 180 138 373
NZ Maori 7 32 135 78 252
Pacific 0 5 28 19 52
Other 0 0 3 4 7
Unknown 3 14 43 44 104
Total 21 98 402 293 814

Places without chases over traffic gripes have more effective and respected cops

Just as Police can’t fire guns with civilians around they can’t chase over traffic offences in many places, South Aus. police like Los Angeles’ use star chase in which a GPS tracking device is shot onto on to fleeing cars & tracked by a website. Automatic number plate recognition also supports a “walk away” norm. Chase bans took Toronto to zero deaths.
Countries valuing safety removed Officer discretion to launch chases and only violent crims are chased. Enlightened Police care enough about public safety not to tango which they well know equates to taking the safety off of others weapons.

POLICE PURSUITS KILL INNOCENTS – IT NEED NOT HAPPEN

IT’S NOT WORTH IT FOR A TICKET - POLICE TELL PORKIES THAT THEIR POLICY IS “ALREADY RESTRICTIVE” – IT’S THE SLACKEST IN THE WORLD

OUR POLICY IS DRAWING ATTENTION AS PRIMITIVE FROM INTERNATIONAL AUTHORITIES LIKE Dr ALPERT ON RADIO NZ

THEY CAN’T SEEM TO FIX IT AND DEFEND THE STATUS QUO BECAUSE OF COMMITMENTS TO RUN A QUOTAS TRIAL ON OUR SHORES FOR 5 MORE YEARS

COLLINS MAKES KIWI LIVES CHEAPER!!!!

[marty]

You're having a laugh surely.

Pursuits are racist? Lol. How about Maori who decide to do a runner take some fucking responsibility for their actions? That would be refreshing!

You need to get your story sorted and stick with it - one minute you want the Police to stop everyone, next you want them to ignore it?:

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/93698-Police-put-drug-driver-on-road

[Jdogg]

so you would prefer the crims that dont give a fuck, knowing that if they go fast they wont be chased....dreamer,:yes:

All that would happen would be more crime ie some dude who has just ripped your house off, is seen leaving the crime by cops but hits 60k in a built up area, pursuit called off crims get away....and the circle of crime carries on.

Dont you watch all the cop shows on the UK and US, they go hard on chasing down the runners as it usually leads to a bigger bust ie: drugs in car, stolen goods, outstanding warrants, the list goes on

but hey if you want to give the crims even more of an advantage thats your choice, I think you will find the fatalities caused by cops chasing to JUST give a ticket are low, compared to the ones that are being chased for bigger crims, which are the ones we need to deter not encourage......:blink:

[SMOKEU]

The OP is a fucking muppet.

[DMNTD]

No wonder this is in Rant 'n Rave :mellow:

[Patrick]

Protests blaming the Police? You're joking.

Even the families involved in the latest blame the fleeing driver, solely and singularly.

He was already doing 89. Would he have driven through the reds? Who knows....
'
Had a Subaru doing well over 140 going up the wrong way of one of our one way streets not long ago, through at least 3 intersections, one controlled by lights... lights that he couldn't see, as he was going against the flow... and he wasn't being chased. Why? Because he could.

Do nothing?

Nanny state all right....

[Genestho]

Sorry.


Is the protest to stop police pursuits?:blink:

If not, what is the catch phrase.......? I have no problems at all with modernisation, however there will always be pursuits.


You can quote all the numbers you like, but the simple fact is - police have a job to do.

I don't want to see anarchy on the roads by suggesting this is the Police's fault and to call off pursuits when clearly the driver is an acute danger.

I do agree there have been exceptions to the rule - where police could've made a better judgment call and should take absolute accountability in these cases.

But going by the latest media story....

He was spotted by a petrol station worker 3 hours prior to the crash "He fumbled with the petrol cap - I could smell alcohol on his breath"
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10669652

If the driver had been let go, he may have still crashed, or, is has also been reported - if known by police - he may have tampered with or torched the car before police caught up with him.

It is a terrible tragedy what has happened, but what HE the fleeing disqualified and drunk driver did, should have a Manslaughter charge attached and take responsibility for what's been done.

[Ferkletastic]

Yeah, No.

As has been stated, it's not the cops chasing that're killing people, it's the morons running.

[BoristheBiter]

I think the OP is just going for the record for the red rep on one post.
What a complete dick you are.

GO and get a job you bludger, if you have a job get to work you lazy fuck.

[Indiana_Jones]

This is a piss-take surely?

-Indy

[Quasievil]

Stoopid, solve the problem by making the sentence for failing to stop 3 months in Jail and a $10,000 k fine and have your car/bike crushed, problem solved.

Ive chased offenders down and its fucken good fun:shit:, dont take it away !!

[SMOKEU]

I think the OP is just going for the record for the red rep on one post.
What a complete dick you are.

GO and get a job you bludger, if you have a job get to work you lazy fuck.

I don't think anyone has beaten my record yet for the most red rep in one post. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[NighthawkNZ]

ummmm... yeah... nope

[scissorhands]

Current pursuit policy does put the public at risk......but protesting against the cops will not be a popular protest by any means.

If the Op wants to raise awareness of the increase in death to Joe Q from pursuits, the thread starter could be shorter and contain better grammar.

My suggestion would be to approach the police in a polite manner.

[SMOKEU]

Current pursuit policy does put the public at risk

Not making a good attempt at stopping the offender(s) puts the public at even more risk.

[BoristheBiter]

I don't think anyone has beaten my record yet for the most red rep in one post. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Not yet but the way this is going you never know.

[BoristheBiter]

Current pursuit policy does put the public at risk......but protesting against the cops will not be a popular protest by any means.

If the Op wants to raise awareness of the increase in death to Joe Q from pursuits, the thread starter could be shorter and contain better grammar.

My suggestion would be to approach the police in a polite manner.

No wrong. failure to stop for police puts the publice at risk.

[scracha]

e in 4x the chases (per capita) of the UK, Queensland & safety valuing places. Since the ticket hunt stated Police have no time to attend crimes. Police are
Probably because of a lack of helicopter, there's 100x the runners here per capita. I don't know ANYBODY in the UK who's ran from the cops since the mid-80's.

[SMOKEU]

Probably because of a lack of helicopter, there's 100x the runners here per capita. I don't know ANYBODY in the UK who's ran from the cops since the mid-80's.

The Auckland police have a whirly.

[Paul in NZ]

Fair enough to protest but....

You need to balance it out with a protest outside mr muppets hospital bed - flaming torches and pitchforks would add somewhat to the effect...

[Genie]

You protest against the Police for doing their job.....I'm confused. Whatever next!

[dynamite9585]

what a relife!!!! i read the OP and thought "you can't tell me this clown is getting support"

i agree the problem is people not stoping, not the police chasing.

[AllanB]

I'll give you the benefit of my doubts and just presume your post is a bad taste joke.

Shame on you - it's not funny.

[candor]

So all the experts are wrong. All the studies are wrong. All the pursuit policies in safer road countries are wrong. Wake up people. So manty studies show that drunk drive crash risk is mega increased by chases that anyone supporting such clownish behaviour is supporting homicide.
The risk of any drunk driver goes up as proven by bulk studies about 100 x when they are chased. Exactly they same as lighting a timebombs fuse or as if armed offenders fired randomly into the public while people are around.
There's nothing radical in the OP - just facts - undeniable facts that should not be suppressed in a safety valuing culture. Without facts we're all just swimming in a pea soup never knowing whats what.

The view of family which is grieving and can't be expected to be up to speed on chase science is not really authoritative nor any help to future innocent victims. I question the ethics of vulture Police visiting them to manipulate - what about their legal rights to not be involved in damage control... the investigations havent happened so rights and wrongs are not yet established.

For 7 years prior to 2003 Police racked up only 1-2 chase deaths yearly which is the norm in civilised societies. From 2002-2008 they upped the average to this year about 10. This is a scandal along with the 293 innocent victims harmed. Move into this century people.
If you won't take it from me here catching cops out lying....
> > pg bottom
> > http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/35343/police-chase-rule-change-'will-encourage-offenders-to-flee'

or take it fom the experts
Listen to the global expert also on RNZ
> > http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/55275/driver-charged-over-fatal-pursuit

- congrats on knowing best based on gut feeling and diehard police love. Yolu won't find evidence for your theiries so compatible with Police spin though. The studies begun mid 90's are clear - runners dont increase with tight policies and Goddards report DID say most chases are over trivia. Police share responsibility in this decline in chase safety. It's hilarious if people can read the evidence and still not concede this - get to Police college now!

Police are at a Crossroads. Their choice is to get familiar with the scientific evidence and proced in a way that puts road safety first
Or they can support the Collins idiocy of a kneejerk toughening up on runner penalties that has not worked in New York or anywhere else tried to reduce flight incidences.

There is no question - the science is clear like 2 + 2. It is always better not to chase an impaired driver. On average a chase will cause more harm than letting them get away. Drunks pose a chronic risk not acute - they an go thousands of miles no crash and on average will, intriducing a chase to the mix on average causes more death. Sp why do it - thats a bit homicidal really.
As a nurse I'd never administer a treatment known to worsen a condition - I'd be sacked!

[bogan]

So all the experts are wrong. All the studies are wrong. All the pursuit policies in safer road countries are wrong. Wake up people. So manty studies show that drunk drive crash risk is mega increased by chases that anyone supporting such clownish behaviour is supporting homicide.

Links please?

[candor]

Sorry.


Is the protest to stop police pursuits?:blink:

You can quote all the numbers you like, but the simple fact is - police have a job to do.

I don't want to see anarchy on the roads by suggesting this is the Police's fault and to call off pursuits when clearly the driver is an acute danger.



Links coming - need time out

1. Pursuits over traffic offences
2. If the job is to maximise safety rampant chases are not the way as acknowledged in modern policies overseas where roads are safer
3. Restrictive policies reduce anarchy - the studies aren't just studies - they are about saving lives so not to be sniffed at imo
4. The latest fatal wouldn't have happened in many countries because impaired drivers aren't pursued like that as it turns a chronic risk acute - they use star chase and anpr or a variety of other methods to later and safely apprehend. A chase in an urban area with several traffic light controlled intersections would never be contemplated.

PS - it is cops feedingus info who are very discontent with how policy has gone so all is not as it seems.

[schrodingers cat]

In typical KB fashion I can't be bothered reading in any great detail but I'm guessing that you are seeking folks to join you on a ride to lobby for the police to be equipped with heat seeking missiles to blow the fuck up the morons on our roads who can't consider anybody or anything else but their own limited sphere of experience.

I'm good with that

[SMOKEU]

It is always better not to chase an impaired driver. On average a chase will cause more harm than letting them get away.

So then I can drive around pissed with no license plates and the cops can't do anything. What a great idea!

[candor]

So then I can drive around pissed with no license plates and the cops can't do anything. What a great idea!

There wouldn't be so much of this if our laws dealt with offenders first or second time round - N.Y. confiscates cars and ensures dicks stay off the road... basics missing etc etc

[Virago]

There wouldn't be so much of this if our laws dealt with offenders first or second time round - Ny confiscates cars and ensures dicks stay off the road... basics missing etc etc

How do you catch them first or second round, if you can't chase them?

[Genestho]

Links coming - need time out

1. Pursuits over traffic offences
2. If the job is to maximise safety rampant chases are not the way as acknowledged in modern policies overseas where roads are safer
3. Restrictive policies reduce anarchy - the studies aren't just studies - they are about saving lives so not to be sniffed at imo
4. The latest fatal wouldn't have happened in many countries because impaired drivers aren't pursued like that as it turns a chronic risk acute - they use star chase and anpr or a variety of other methods to later and safely apprehend. A chase in an urban area with several traffic light controlled intersections would never be contemplated.

PS - it is cops feedingus info who are very discontent with how policy has gone so all is not as it seems.


There is a trial program about to be implemented using GPS in conjunction with alcohol support groups to monitor, apprehend and support recidivist drink drivers, is it possible to extend this further?
http://www.tenone.police.govt.nz/tenone/Aug10Drivers.htm

I would suggest it could be a preferred option economically to expand on what is available...


I have read the 'star chase' info. http://www.starchase.com/howitworks.html

If you are seeking support here for certain technology to reduce the deaths of innocent motorists - you need to provide specific links to coherently illustrate your point please. :)

[dynamite9585]

There wouldn't be so much of this if our laws dealt with offenders first or second time round - Ny confiscates cars and ensures dicks stay off the road... basics missing etc etc

so you would be happy with another $100 on your rego (per vehicle) to cover those costs?

[SMOKEU]

There wouldn't be so much of this if our laws dealt with offenders first or second time round - N.Y. confiscates cars and ensures dicks stay off the road... basics missing etc etc

The cops still have to catch the offenders first.

[scissorhands]

When I was 16 years old I got chased by the fuzz on my Suzuki GT380, cause I was speeding

At the time of the pursuit I actually thought the unmarked HQ Holden was a civilian vehicle, no lights or siren, I thought it was a drag (really, I was 16 years old).

Anyway, after we had been at this for about 10 minutes including 160km/hr on the motorway, he peeled off after I failed to make a bend, ending up riding on the footpath via a driveway, doing about 80km/hr at the time of going on to the footpath, near Turners Auctions in Penrose. Then back on the road, it was like a friggin action movie

Got home, phone rang, come down to station, locked in a holding room and dressed down big time. One of the most stupid things I have ever done ever, but I didnt know the pursuer was a cop, and I was 16 years old, still a child to my family who would have missed me.:bye:

I could have easily died that day:yes:.

[Woodman]

So should we now start negotiating with terrorists??

candor, your ideals are just making it harder for people with common sense to get by, and easier for dickheads who want to blame everyone else for the dumshit that they do.

And racist??????? fuck off.

[munster]

No way I can support this.

No one made that guy crash & kill those two people. He only has himself to blame.

It's about time people started taking responsibility for themselves and stopped looking to blame others for their own inept decisions.

[rustic101]

Protest? I saw three females chanting which hardly constituted a protest.

[puddy]

It's all good. Take off, crash, cry like a baby, show remorse (for the situation you find yourself in) and you might just get 8 months home D!
If you can't drive/ride, don't run. And that goes for Maoris too!

[Lurch]

The innocent people we lose to runners are a damn shame there's no two ways about it. The runners who die in the accident they cause by running..... they got the death that they chose for themselves, nothing else.

[BAD DAD]

When I was 16 years old I got chased by the fuzz on my Suzuki GT380, .

Ha ha I can still remember a time when I thought GT380' s were BIG bikes.

Sorry Candor, can't quite see how the statistics you have quoted point to any form of racism (except that they possibly chase less Asian and Pacific drivers than Euros & Maori). It's hard to know what the cops should do really. When an "offender" dies on the roads it must be a tragic time for his family , but when some innocent person is hurt or killed you need to convince me that any mercy should be shown. It won't be easy to do that.

[candor]

Ha ha
when some innocent person is hurt or killed you need to convince me that any mercy should be shown. It won't be easy to do that.

The mercy should be shown by pulling all stops out to prevent it not tolerating high harm rates then making everyone feel better by lock up and throw away the key.


Protest? I saw three females chanting which hardly constituted a protest.

Hmmm... who have all had their families reduced by drunk drivers, ones forst child is named after the victim - change needs to start somewhere. As far as all who're commenting re racism bah humbug, it was the wish of the others who are Maori to include that point. We got more wellwishers the other end of town, seemed more conservative (& abusive) by the HQ. But then one protestor said "well this is like protesting poverty in Fendalton"!

It's missing the wider picture to say "runners fault - end of discussion". Current harm levels aren't within cooey of acceptable by any benchmark - not an acceptable cost of doing business, hence foreign experts are condemning NZ's policy. What cretins have influenced it?

Just placing blame (on any party) then stopping there does not help the 293 innocent people injured or killed since chases went up 400% after 2002.
Blaming is not prevention and never will be. Its negative imo, a problem solving tack is needed but for that all factors need identifying, including Polices part. To seek to dodge scrutiny or accountability for improvements where needed and always be right isn't very helpful.

The big question is why we used to have the same chase frequency as other countries and equal harm to runners and innocent victims, but in 6 short years thats quadrupled. By my calculation that means 150 of the innocent victims 2002-8 never would have been victims had the pre 2003 chase initiation threshold remained in place.

Did crims make the Police go from 500 chases a year to over 2000 nearly overnight? Noooooo... clearly the chase threshold dropped and dropped. To the Publics hazard.

To accept this high level of carnage just because "the crims started it", when Policing tactics have the strongest influence on whether chases start, continue etc sells short. This gives no hope for future victims since a sole focus on the crims via penalties etc has never worked. Darwins to all who believe that Collins party trick of pleading with offenders not to run will work. Last shower? Blind loyalty + total suppor in all matters isn't what friends do. JC's a Police mate and vote receptacle, but I'm not sure it's a good leader.

[The Stranger]

No way I can support this.

No one made that guy crash & kill those two people. He only has himself to blame.

It's about time people started taking responsibility for themselves and stopped looking to blame others for their own inept decisions.

Come on, if the govt mandated compulsory training the fleeing drivers would be better able handle runners and this type of thing wouldn't happen. So of course it's the governments fault.

[munster]

Did crims make the Police go from 500 chases a year to over 2000 nearly overnight? Noooooo... clearly the chase threshold dropped and dropped. To the Publics hazard.

Yes, when the courts & coroners started telling police off about their chase tactics and that they should lay off, there was a huge increase in the numbers of runners. That coupled with our limp wristed wet bus ticket justice system has produced a generation of perps who now treat cop baiting and evading as a challenge.

As Lurch said "The innocent people we lose to runners are a damn shame there's no two ways about it. The runners who die in the accident they cause by running..... they got the death that they chose for themselves, nothing else. "

No sympathy whatsoever from me for those that kill or maim themselves in this fashion.

Bloody hell, next they'll be calling it 'Police assisted vehicular suicide'.

[IdunBrokdItAgin]

To accept this high level of carnage just because "the crims started it", when Policing tactics have the strongest influence on whether chases start, continue etc sells short. .

Nah, you're just a dick. No way you can tell me that less provocation is needed by police to give chase is a bad thing.

If anything the general population want police to always give chase regardless of the crime. I got stopped for speeding at the weekend (in a car) saw the cop car u turn after I passed it and thought "ah bollocks" any thought of running - none.

If you want to blame someone - blame the person who made the decision to run from the cops. It was their decision to endanger both themselves and others at the point of making that decision.

Why you have decided to come on here and try and rally support for this stupidity seems a bit mis-guided - unless you just see bikers as anti-establishment regardless of the issue, and incapable of rational opinions.

[davereid]

If we ask ourselves the question "Why do they flee", the answer is simple. We have given them motive to flee, with high penalties, roadside confiscation etc etc.

We have compounded that problem by not catching enough of those that do flee. Every time one has evaded the police, his mana amongst his peer group grows. His story is repeated while the story of those that did not get away is forgotten.

The penalty for failure to stop is irrelevant.

Take drivers licence away ? Too late. already gone.

Impound car and crush it ? They will find a way to buy or steal a new one long time before they pay the fine and crusher fees on the old one.

Lock them up ? Even jail crazy USA can only manage to lock up driving offenders for 1/20th of their sentence.

The reality is that the fleeing driver if he is rational expects he will get away. If he is irrational it does not matter what he thinks.

So changes to the way we treat drivers who flee is not going to be effective.

We blew it when we gave them a motive to flee, without increasing our ability to catch them.

This particular cat has learned that we find it hard to herd him, and the more we hurt him when we catch him, the more incentive he has to flee.

As our new dogs are no faster than the old ones, he will continue to flee until convinced he can't get away.

This creates for us the quandary, that if we do not chase, he will continue to run. If we do chase, the carnage will continue.

My bet ?

We will continue to chase. We will increase penalties, completely ineffectively, but increasing motive not to stop.

The carnage will continue, as only the fleeing driver gets to choose to end it.

Then we will lose a family, a small school bus, or a church group. And then we will end chases.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~

Helicopters can't actually stop a pursuit. Their power comes from the fact that the fleeing motorist is convinced before the chase begins, that he cannot get away.

Would increasing the number of motorcycle cops help ? While a motorcycle cop can't stop a fleeing motorist, it will easily follow one.

The cat may learn that the new dog can easily catch him.

[Indiana_Jones]

If you want to blame someone - blame the person who made the decision to run from the cops. It was their decision to endanger both themselves and others at the point of making that decision.



What the fuck?

Taking personal responsibility?

That's just not the generation Y-bother way....

-Indy

[marty]

When I was 16 years old I got chased by the fuzz on my Suzuki GT380, cause I was speeding

At the time of the pursuit I actually thought the unmarked HQ Holden was a civilian vehicle, no lights or siren, I thought it was a drag (really, I was 16 years old).

Anyway, after we had been at this for about 10 minutes including 160km/hr on the motorway, he peeled off after I failed to make a bend, ending up riding on the footpath via a driveway, doing about 80km/hr at the time of going on to the footpath, near Turners Auctions in Penrose. Then back on the road, it was like a friggin action movie

Got home, phone rang, come down to station, locked in a holding room and dressed down big time. One of the most stupid things I have ever done ever, but I didnt know the pursuer was a cop, and I was 16 years old, still a child to my family who would have missed me.:bye:

I could have easily died that day:yes:.

so that wasn't a chase. it was a race. quite different. mindset is different

[marty]

How do you catch them first or second round, if you can't chase them?

I'm still waiting for the OP's words of wisdom on this too....

[Bass]

Helicopters can't actually stop a pursuit. Their power comes from the fact that the fleeing motorist is convinced before the chase begins, that he cannot get away.

Would increasing the number of motorcycle cops help ? While a motorcycle cop can't stop a fleeing motorist, it will easily follow one.

The cat may learn that the new dog can easily catch him.

Now you're talking!!!
I actually don't have a problem with runners erasing themselves. They put me and mine at seriously increased extra risk and I don't like that. So if they are wiped out, there would seem to be some Karma working there and probably an increase in the national average IQ as well. (Gene-O-Kleen as Ixion used to put it, evolution you can see)
So...... what if we gave the cops a few A 10's or Apaches?
A few kilos of depleted uranium arriving at several thousand feet per second and the problem goes away - just vapourises really.
Now there's an incentive not to run!


Redneck?????? Me????? Never!!!!

[Pixie]

A wise man once said: "the definition of insanity is repeating the same action and expecting a different result".

I would add to this observation: "repeating the same action with increasing frequency and expecting a reduction in the same result".

I guess our authorities must be insane



Actually,when you think about it the morons who run and crash are often seen wandering around in the aftermath with looks of astonishment that something actually went wrong with their wonderful escape plan - that is if they are still conscious.
And,similarly,as we saw in Christchurch, the chasing cop is so shocked that his plan to chase and stop the terrible criminal has resulted in the death,regardless of who is to blame, of two bystanders that his boss has to get on TV and tell us the cop in question is devastated.....Or the cop in Waikato who killed the following motorcyclist is devastated.......or the cop on the west coast who took out the two following motorcyclists is devastated.......or the cop that removed the leg of the rider on SH2 is devastated.

Oh dear.Such devastation.Who would want to be a traffic cop?

[shrub]

If we ask ourselves the question "Why do they flee", the answer is simple. We have given them motive to flee, with high penalties, roadside confiscation etc etc.

Very well put, the outcome of stopping is a shitload of money and possibly your license, the outcome of running is quite possibly escaping unscathed. I can see why people do it.

[shrub]

A wise man once said: "the definition of insanity is repeating the same action and expecting a different result".

I would add to this observation: "repeating the same action with increasing frequency and expecting a reduction in the same result".

I guess our authorities must be insane

I know our authorities are insane

[candor]

I'm still waiting for the OP's words of wisdom on this too....

The answer is given earlier I think. You flag some by just not pursuing it with minor issues, and for those where pursuit is necessary as the imminent peril ON BEST SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE (not Police snap judgement calls) matches the peril that would be created by a chase eg violent offenders then you employ tech where possible like the new star chase system that GW kindly posted links to. Good news there about the Kapiti repeat offender program too.

Is $'s best spent on starchase or anpr or a comprehensive ingnition interlock program or drug testing or on jail for police evaders...

Whoever said I'm trying to rally bikers because I feel they are antiestablishment - it was an invite to people I thought may be road safety supporters. Noone had to agree with my take, an adult discussion a la Dave Reid would be nice.

But my object is not to see cops catch every bugger based on some premise opf social decay if they don't - its to minimise loss of life from attempts at that - I'm a bad egg I know but it seems some see my point (including some pilars of the establishment who're now in touch).
Thats not antiestablishment to want to see Police operate as effectively as they can in fulfilling their vow to protect life. It's pro. Police don't bust all pot smokers but issue bulk warnings and society hasn't fallen - same with minor traffic offenders - ignoring them or later follow up has been found to work best for social order (less crashes) overseas.

I will get to posting some links as promised later today but pressed for time right now.

[candor]

Apparently Welly is an asylum of sorts, they told me. Wow I got more bad rep in one day than in several years onsite!

[BoristheBiter]

Apparently Welly is an asylum of sorts, they told me. Wow I got more bad rep in one day than in several years onsite!

That's because your idea is from so far up your arse it should have never seen the light of day.

[BoristheBiter]

.


Helicopters can't actually stop a pursuit. Their power comes from the fact that the fleeing motorist is convinced before the chase begins, that he cannot get away.

Would increasing the number of motorcycle cops help ? While a motorcycle cop can't stop a fleeing motorist, it will easily follow one.

The cat may learn that the new dog can easily catch him.

I'm glad i finished reading that post.
I think that is the first proper idea to come from this thread.

[scissorhands]

Cops on bikes could be rammed though....

[Kornholio]

Cops on bikes could be rammed though....

And U-turned in front of... wouldn't that be one for the books :blink:

[candor]

Can't find direct links for some stuff, would need to scan print copies

Red mist topic reference (one of many available)
A factorial analysis of police pursuit driving decisions: A research note 1
Author: Geoffrey P. Alperta
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a718869738
Shows Police underemphasize safety factors in decisions around chases as offence level rises

Pursuits risks (in all common classes of chase) are found to outweigh pursuit benefits safety wise.
Robert E. Crew, Robert A. Hart, (1999) "Assessing the value of police pursuit", Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 22 Iss: 1, pp.58 - 74
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=872271&show=html

Researchers find that an informed public is less likely to accept pursuits
Public attitudes toward police pursuit driving
John M. MacDonalda and Geoffrey P. Alpertb, Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology University of Maryland 2220 LeFrak Hall College Park,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V75-3VY509W-B&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F06%2F1998&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1445878378&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4f405789d05540b46db68a0dbcd3593e&searchtype=a

A Qsld report drawing on suchlike as above just recommended policy overhaul, including no pursuits of suspected drunk or drug drivers and no pursuits without evidence versus suspicion of (serious) non traffic crime. At a 0.144 pursuit crash risk suspected impaired drivers are among the most risky to chase, other traffic offenders are among the most likely to crash if chased also (Crew et al, Minne 1995).

Pursuits for suspected impaired driving end in crashes 48% of the time (Auten 1994). One pursuit of a DUI suspect puts 100’s of lives at risk due to added speed and adrenalin experts comment. Their odds of crashing are greatly increased versus on any non pursuit trip as statistically it’s neither likely or probable that each event of driving under influence will end in a crash.

Prof Ross Homel, says police inadvertently provoke young unlicensed drivers to flee. Chris Bult, former head of the NSW police driver training school, says: "Police do get excited. There is a thing we call the red mist where common sense quite often goes out of the window." On the other side – studies of runners have established that they don’t intend stopping until they are safe – defined as being out of reach of apprehension.

One killer runner the misnomed Saviour Falzon, told the court that the pressure of the chase meant he did not know he was approaching an intersection. "I was accelerating the whole time because the police kept going faster and faster, so I kept going to get away from them" (Media report).

OUR KIWI LETHAL PURSUITS ARE OVERWHEALMINGLY UNNECESSARY AS THEY RELATE TO PUBLIC SACRIFICES OVER TRIVIA;

“during the five years to 19 December 2008... 24 people died in Police pursuits, 90 resulted in serious injury. Most of the pursuits were started over traffic offending, though 31 were started over known or suspected criminal offending (mostly car conversion and other property offences). Relatively few pursuits uncovered evidence of serious crimes other than those associated with the offender's driving during the pursuit.” (Justice Goddard, IPCA report 2009)

Literate and suable Police are increasingly against pursuit culture AS EVIDENCE SINKS IN

In St. Louis County only a serious felony can trigger a high-speed chase, If someone is DUI, police give the driver a wide berth. Police there also say "We would rather let a stolen car go than take the risk of someone getting killed." (Cincinatti Post).

Evidence based safer places with no chases over traffic sins are discussed at length in Goddards report which I cite in rest of this post below the linkhttp://www.ipca.govt.nz/Site/media/2009/2009-Oct13-Pursuits-Review.aspx

Police in Victoria, Canada in 2007 adopted a policy restricting pursuits to situations where there were reasonable grounds to believe the driver or passenger of a vehicle “has committed, or is about to commit a serious criminal offence involving the imminent the threat of grievous bodily harm or death to any person”. The policy explicitly prohibited pursuits when the offence was solely a traffic or property crime. Several United States jurisdictions also restrict pursuits to very serious and/or violent offending. One Australian state does not permit pursuits over traffic offences.

When ‘violent offender only’ policies are introduced, there is a dramatic fall in the number of pursuits and pursuit‐related injuries and fatalities, but no corresponding increase in crime or vehicle offending rates (for example, Alpert, 1997; Oakland Police Review Board, 2004; Homel, 1994).
(Source of prior paras - Goddard report)

Educated crash victims or bereaved victims round the world are campaigning for no pursuits over traffic offences or stolen cars - this means we're not freaks (will find links another day if anyone cares).

Finally this is a good issue map but I can't find a link
57 Mercer L. Rev. 511 (2005-2006)
Police Pursuits: A Comprehensive Look at the Broad Spectrum of Police Pursuit Liability and Law; O'Connor, Patrick T.; Norse, William L. Jr.

[candor]

Vote Blair for Mayor - backing repeal of boy racer laws.

[Lil_Byte]

Alot of these do not even get to be chases as they are over in a very few minutes.

What you some are you uggesting is that the police will never stop anyone.

That would be great - let the criminals rule I say.

In fact just shoot the bleeding hearts on this thread

[Patrick]

4. The latest fatal wouldn't have happened in many countries

Utter bollocks. Car doing 89, cop sees this, and does his job by turning around (thankfully not in front of an oncoming motorbike....:innocent: and activates his lights, as one would expect. Driver takes off. 30 seconds later, its all over... and this is the cops fault? Driver was already doing 89. What else was one suppoosed to do?

PS - it is cops feedingus info who are very discontent with how policy has gone so all is not as it seems.

Not this fella..... Or is this just another outragous claim...???


Vote Blair for Mayor - backing repeal of boy racer laws.

He can repeal the speeding laws too, and the keeping left rules, and the WOF rules and the stopping for red lights and stop signs, and.....:no:

[Patrick]

So, how many protesters turned up? Nothing in the news....

Should have had a "Protest against the protesters" day....

[Lurch]

I think at this time we need a summary,

candor, you are a gullible cock living in some kind of dream world.

[candor]

It wouldn't have happened with a chase on tail in many places so the odds of intersection running would lower. 30 seconds is a long time in a chase, I'd rather wait for the coroners and other reports to hear details before judging. Regardless if the cop acted within rules if a chase was on that would not have been sanctioned as the wisest move in many places. If he just turned then quit when the guy ran that's ok in my book, also ok if he chased because the policy or work environment not the individual is wrong.

E-ml from anon long standing cop visiting CHCH received by me 2 August. I have others similar, a wee collection I'd really like to turn over to an inquiry. Its not my 6th sense why I've been screaming about chases for years - I represent good cops who can't shout out.

Subject - pursuit crash;

"...around 2am on Sun 28 Feb I went to a 24 x 7 restaurant called "Dennys" in the city, on the corner of Moorhouse Ave and Manchester Street (where the media release says the above crash occurred).

I sat in the restaurant for over an hour eating my "supper" and drinking tea, and I noticed that a Police car must have been parked up somewhere near the Manchester Street/Moorhouse Ave traffic lights. The Police car pulled out onto Manchester Street just before these traffic lights, would switch on the siren and speed off after turning West into Moorhouse Ave on each occasion. In the time I sat there, it pulled out from the same area near these same lights possibly three times, but at least twice (which is why it was memorable).

On each occasion it headed West up Moorhouse Ave and my belief and interpretation at that time, was that this Police Car was waiting to chase cars it wanted to stop by 1. watching out for "suspicious"? cars crossing that junction (ie: cars driving along Moorhouse from East to West) and then 2. Turning onto Moorhouse with siren blazing and accelerating off at speed. Let's just say it appeared to be a "strategic" position to enact this kind of targeting and chasing. Moorhouse Ave is a wide road, with a number of lanes and is a straight road with many sets of lights.

One reason I thought this Police action even more dangerous than other places, was because of the many sets of lights all along Moorhouse Ave.

I was not exactly "monitoring the traffic" of course, but I hadn't noticed any particularly loud / fast driving on Moorhouse preceding these events. It would be interesting to see the logs showing where drivers are physically stopped by the Police on ("Saturday nights") Sunday morning between say 1am and 4am in Christchurch. I believe the vicinity of Moorhouse Ave and Manchester Street will focus strongly.

In the situation above, if the actual crash occurred at the junction of Moorhouse Ave and Manchester Street, that would suggest the chase started further away than the area I observed on 28 February".

[Lurch]

You really are a fucking muppet.

The plural of anecdote is not data

[marty]

i call bullshit. I know long standing cop language when writing reports/job sheets etc, and that ain't it by a long shot.

[candor]

You're welcome to call it - but that is from a cop. Maybe they change dialect talking to civvys. Its an e-ml not a report... by an MoT who is unhappy about amalgamation.

No need to scream Lurch - you want empirical evidence sources - see post 60. You don't want, find a sand-pit.

[Genestho]

I found this Coroners Reccomendation from Queensland, which makes for interesting reading:
http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/Police-pursuits20100331.pdf

Whether policy is under review in Qland I couldn't find it, pursuit policy looks to be the same with no ammendments that I could spot since 09.


Here's a link to our latest pursuits policy review released in June, which refers to quite a few jurisdictions and GPS systems are mentioned - from page 62 are reccomendations for those lacking the stamina :whistle:.

http://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/New%20Zealand%20Police%20Pursuits%20Review%20-%20June%202010.pdf

Interesting to note frustation of the courts system in pg 49 of the report:

" This group of offenders are endangering public safety, yet are often charged with minor offences.
There are no real consequences or incentives to encourage offenders to change their behaviour. It could be argued that if the punishment was more severe, for example imprisonment, this may provide some deterrence for those determined to engage Police in pursuits at any opportunity: provided of course, Police can apprehend them.
This lack of deterrence is backed by figures provided by the Police Prosecution Service.

For the period January 2006 to December 2008, the average number of failing to stop offences per year was 2,521.

However, the number of these that went through the court process yet had no sentence imposed was very high: 2006, 73.5%; 2007, 74.2%; and 2008, 73.8%.

A court disqualification was imposed on average over the three years, for only 5.4% of convictions.
This is incredibly low for an offence that can have such serious consequences."

I also note in the IPCA link, the last line is:

"It is also important to acknowledge that pursuits start when drivers fail to respect the law and stop for Police.
When pursuits end badly, it is those drivers who must bear the responsibility.”

[Indoo]

However, the number of these that went through the court process yet had no sentence imposed was very high: 2006, 73.5%; 2007, 74.2%; and 2008, 73.8%.
]

And therein lies the problem, the courts and legislation make it almost a rational decision for these muppets. Why not run, the penalty is unlikely to be that much greater and there is a chance you might get away and avoid any penalty whatsoever.

Its good to see Candor addressing the real problem, the recidivist drivers themselves and the system that allows people with 17+ drink driving convictions to still roamfree, untreated, unrepetenant and if Candor has there way also unstoppable on the road.

I love the claim that the pursuit policy must also be racist because more fugitives are Maori and more innocent victims are also Maori. Does this mean that the Police are delibrately targetting Maori drivers who then inturn themselves are delibrately targeting innocent Maori in other vehicles to crash into and kill?

[candor]

Ridiculous. We have long advocated hard for car seizures of recidivists (only 1 in 60 drink drivers loses the wheels), alongside others for IIDs (TGW led the charge), and many other things like a good dose of home d for DUI teens first pop (oh dear no parties). A sole sweep up of chronics by enforcement over and over as the prime approach sucks. You guys are asked to play ground hog day and set up to fail. So checkpoints can be Treasuries wee ATMs - they really are checkbook points - but thx to the Judges too. They need some whippin.

Not chasing impaired drivers who don't initially stop but using other methods to contain their risk is only part of a best evidence approach. Its pure simple math - their crash risk is phenomenally increased by chases. A no brainer is that one, once one is familiar with the odds and evidence. What seems an obvious thing to do intuitively is actually the worst thing to do.

Re deterrence via more of a penalty thats tricky. Most countries seem to offer a bit higher a tarrif, but it also doesn't seem to make much difference, Goddards report whilst protecting Polices feathers also has as its main thrust advice for Police to cut back on their chase threshold. A higher penalty may be feel fgood stuff, it might discourage a few and equally could encourage a few. The real gains though would seem to come from slashing pursuit indications as per the global body of evidence.
We proposed a while age to do both, a representative charge that defined it more so than failing to stop (Police Assn then argued against I think), + cutting chase numbers + providing an absolute immunity from legal wrangles if policy followed. The danger we're worried about at Candor is that the real solutions will be set aside while the focus of MPs goes solely on penalty non solutions.

[Indoo]

Sorry I must have missed your protests asking for those sensible measures.

Obviously using other means to stop impaired drivers is preferable, just not all that practical with the budgets, technology and legislation we currently have. Banning pursuits outright will just encourage more drunks to run in the first place, endangering more innocent people and turning up at their home address a few hours later or the next day to breath test them isn't exactly legal or effective.

I'd be interested to see the figures of pursuit fatalities broken down so that they show offender deaths and injurys and truly innocent people seperately - ie not associated with the offender in anyway, because thats the figure that is most important .

[candor]

Not protests - submissions and begging and blabbing these things to media any opportunity. But theres no priority on advances as they think we have the answers as is. State of the Art we're told ROFL. So your view comes from coalface and will have a prejudice or bias as will any view but all need to feed in. We think a taskforce on DUI that steers new initiatives with wide community and stakeholder representation is the way to break out of the bureaucrats fumbling - the best solutions will like elsewhere come from a multi disciplinary approach. Dream, dream, dream...

2002-8 About 500 fugitives hurt somehow, 293 others (non drivers) - I have more detail somewhere but its basicly 40% bystanders harmed if I add right at this hour. See post 60 which gives just deaths and serious but not minor injuries - but not with the bystander breakdown. Presumably its still 60/40. Gets into large numbers of innocents somewhere like the US with larger population which got the pursuit watch movement away.

Huh - why only worry over those not associated with offender. Passengers aren't in control but are victims... there again in Japan it's an offence to passenger with a dui. Gah thud we need to Nationalise vehicles and give Police an remote off button. The end.

[candor]

Sorry I must have missed your protests asking for those sensible measures.

turning up at their home address a few hours later or the next day to breath test them isn't exactly legal or effective.



Make it evading dui tests by presumption (?) and automatic higher penalty of not found to be testable within time. Right now the max fine is thousands lower if you decline a test and just get the refusal charge. Reverse that situation. These sorts of things are why heads need to get together.

[marty]

You're welcome to call it - but that is from a cop. Maybe they change dialect talking to civvys. Its an e-ml not a report... by an MoT who is unhappy about amalgamation.

No need to scream Lurch - you want empirical evidence sources - see post 60. You don't want, find a sand-pit.

FFS - the amalgamation was in 1990 - he needs to move on or fuck off. I said it wasn't a report from a cop.

[marty]

Make it evading dui tests by presumption (?) and automatic higher penalty of not found to be testable within time. Right now the max fine is thousands lower if you decline a test and just get the refusal charge. Reverse that situation. These sorts of things are why heads need to get together.

Did you get that info from your disaffected MoT mate?

A refusal carries the same penalties as eba - refuse a screening test, you'll be arrested on the roadside. refuse the breath test, you go straight to blood. refuse a blood test, you'll be immediately suspended, and charged with refusing, which presumes you blood level is above the limit.

3rd and subsequent refusing carries the same penalties as 3rd and subsequent eba. Impairment driving draws the same penalties.

[Owl]

I don't think anyone has beaten my record yet for the most red rep in one post. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes and how long did it take you to retaliate? By the time you got to me, your red was only worth 1 point.:lol:

I laughed so hard, I nearly bought a round of drinks....................nearly!:bleh:

[BoristheBiter]

It wouldn't have happened with a chase on tail in many places so the odds of intersection running would lower. 30 seconds is a long time in a chase, I'd rather wait for the coroners and other reports to hear details before judging. Regardless if the cop acted within rules if a chase was on that would not have been sanctioned as the wisest move in many places. If he just turned then quit when the guy ran that's ok in my book, also ok if he chased because the policy or work environment not the individual is wrong.

E-ml from anon long standing cop visiting CHCH received by me 2 August. I have others similar, a wee collection I'd really like to turn over to an inquiry. Its not my 6th sense why I've been screaming about chases for years - I represent good cops who can't shout out.

Subject - pursuit crash;

"...around 2am on Sun 28 Feb I went to a 24 x 7 restaurant called "Dennys" in the city, on the corner of Moorhouse Ave and Manchester Street (where the media release says the above crash occurred).

I sat in the restaurant for over an hour eating my "supper" and drinking tea, and I noticed that a Police car must have been parked up somewhere near the Manchester Street/Moorhouse Ave traffic lights. The Police car pulled out onto Manchester Street just before these traffic lights, would switch on the siren and speed off after turning West into Moorhouse Ave on each occasion. In the time I sat there, it pulled out from the same area near these same lights possibly three times, but at least twice (which is why it was memorable).

On each occasion it headed West up Moorhouse Ave and my belief and interpretation at that time, was that this Police Car was waiting to chase cars it wanted to stop by 1. watching out for "suspicious"? cars crossing that junction (ie: cars driving along Moorhouse from East to West) and then 2. Turning onto Moorhouse with siren blazing and accelerating off at speed. Let's just say it appeared to be a "strategic" position to enact this kind of targeting and chasing. Moorhouse Ave is a wide road, with a number of lanes and is a straight road with many sets of lights.

One reason I thought this Police action even more dangerous than other places, was because of the many sets of lights all along Moorhouse Ave.

I was not exactly "monitoring the traffic" of course, but I hadn't noticed any particularly loud / fast driving on Moorhouse preceding these events. It would be interesting to see the logs showing where drivers are physically stopped by the Police on ("Saturday nights") Sunday morning between say 1am and 4am in Christchurch. I believe the vicinity of Moorhouse Ave and Manchester Street will focus strongly.

In the situation above, if the actual crash occurred at the junction of Moorhouse Ave and Manchester Street, that would suggest the chase started further away than the area I observed on 28 February".

If your going to make shit up at least make it sound convicing.
this just reaks of made up BS.

[BoristheBiter]

FFS - the amalgamation was in 1990 - he needs to move on or fuck off. I said it wasn't a report from a cop.

I have just figured it out.
Candor is the old Mot cop, thats why it all sounds made up.:yes:

[Rogue Rider]

1. Police should be scrutinized for more than one brain cell pre employment.
2. Police should have at least half a personality.
3. Police should not be gym grunters.
4. Police should be made to drive Lada patrol cars.
5. Police should Have a zero crash record, never had a speeding ticket, never drink alcohol, and know how to tie their own shoe laces.
6. Police should know how to count past 10 without using their fingers.
7. Police should do an apprenticeship, (prospect) of at least 2 years before they patch up.
8. Police should also have mandatory motorcycle patrol period of at least 6 months, as well as rider education.
9. Police should be taught customer service and have to pass a practical test.
10. Police should have regular tests on customer relations and public relations. They should be taught a vocabulary of more definition than a 1980's Rugby Captain.

Police should know how to play nice. Perhaps if they showed respect, respect would be given. That Nupty on TV the other night who declared that police should be willfully respected, should move to Russia or China where communism is accepted.
It is possible to be in law enforcement and be respected, but respect is earned not a right. When police learn and understand that they need to earn the publics trust, and maintain it, then perhaps they will get some credibility.
The attitude of police as a whole, even as documented on TV shows them to be arrogant, power hungry, impersonal, uncompassionate grovelers. To ticket someone for the sake of issuing a ticket over education never works and never will. All it does is build contempt.
Yes Police need to issue tickets, however it shouldn't be a compulsion, and there should be discretion. I understand that they would need to be taught how to make decisions, but if they recruited better quality officers, perhaps we would have a better service.
I have met only a handful of polite officers in my lifetime, excluding the MOT guys, who were flamin legends back in the day but put out to pasture.
:shifty::shifty::shifty::shifty::shifty::shifty::s hifty::shifty::shifty::shifty:

[SMOKEU]

Yes and how long did it take you to retaliate? By the time you got to me, your red was only worth 1 point.:lol:

I laughed so hard, I nearly bought a round of drinks....................nearly!:bleh:

About 5 days from memory.

[candor]

Look it up or I will later. Killing or is it injuring under influence max fine 20g and if you do the same but declined test max fine 10g. Going on memory but thats the jist - its in the act.

[Forum Ninja]

Too much text to bother reading. Anyone give me the highlights?

From what I did see, are you protesting to stop police pursuits? So if you do something wrong all you have to do is keep moving and you'll never get caught! Awesome! Or perhaps, just a bit dumb. If you do a runner then it's your choice, so take responsibility for your actions.

[BoristheBiter]

Look it up or I will later. Killing or is it injuring under influence max fine 20g and if you do the same but declined test max fine 10g. Going on memory but thats the jist - its in the act.

What are you talking about now?
I think you need to go and look at the land transport act.
You can Google it so you won't even have to go outside.

[candor]

This is so boring & juvey. It is not made up Boris. I'd rather shoot myself than waste hours doing forgeries - my names not Helen - I spent my time meeting a constitutional lawyer to check the Police Ministers frailties, not googling today. Which means you owe me an apology for your sadomasochistic commentary, or karma will follow you like a mad dog. I will shortly be meeting with the sender of the e-ml which I fail to understand why its excited anyone, and will then be able to learn their full Police or (as you'd have it) Police impersonator history. Normally when ppl e-mail I don't ask for a scan of their badge.

[candor]

Too much text to bother reading. Anyone give me the highlights?

From what I did see, are you protesting to stop police pursuits?

To stop Police pursuits over trivia like mainly traffic offences - as per the Police complaints authority recommendation which Police like most other IPCA recommendations on many issues like dog bites have flagrantly ignored. Per legal advice the Minister has respoinsibility for standards and as IPCA reports to Ministers who're responsible to maintain standards, the excuse of not interfering with operations doesn't wash legally speaking. Thats all I'll say for now as things are in motion.

[marty]

The only thing that should be in motion are your lithium tablets being couriered from the chemist

[marty]

Look it up or I will later. Killing or is it injuring under influence max fine 20g and if you do the same but declined test max fine 10g. Going on memory but thats the jist - its in the act.

there's ways and means.....

3 Who must give blood specimen in hospital or surgery



(1) A person who is under examination, care, or treatment in a hospital or doctor's surgery must permit a blood specimen to be taken from the person by—

(a) the medical practitioner who is in immediate charge of the examination, care, or treatment of the person; or



(b) another medical practitioner or a medical officer.


(2) If a person under examination, care, or treatment in a hospital or doctor's surgery is unconscious, a blood specimen may be taken from the person under this section by—


(a) the medical practitioner who is in immediate charge of the examination, care, or treatment of the person; or



(b) another medical practitioner or a medical officer.


(3) The medical practitioner who is in immediate charge of the examination, care, or treatment of the person in a hospital or doctor's surgery—


(a) may cause a blood specimen to be taken by another medical practitioner or a medical officer; and



(b) must either take a blood specimen or cause a blood specimen to be taken by another medical practitioner or a medical officer, if an enforcement officer requests him or her to do so,—

whether or not the person has consented to the taking of the specimen and whether or not the person is capable of giving consent.

and:

Despite subsection (3)(b), a blood specimen may be taken under any provision of this section only if the medical practitioner—

(a) has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is in the hospital or doctor's surgery as a result of—


(i) an accident or incident involving a motor vehicle:



(ii) an injury or a medical condition arising subsequent to an accident or incident involving a motor vehicle; and




(b) has examined the person and is satisfied that the taking of the blood specimen would not be prejudicial to the person's proper care or treatment; and



(c) tells the person (unless the person is unconscious) that the blood specimen is being or was taken under this section for evidential purposes.

[Toaster]

Yeah, No.

As has been stated, it's not the cops chasing that're killing people, it's the morons running.

Exactly. Many in this country need to learn both some self and social responsiblilty and stop being so damn selfish.

People should stop blaming the police from trying to do their best to deal with scum that break the law and start having a go at the muppets that run and put us all at risk.

Bring back the moving block.

[Laxi]

No wonder this is in Rant 'n Rave :mellow:

should have been PD'd! instead it gets a 6 page disscusion? FFS

[marty]

i'm only up to page 3. change your settings to 40/page :Punk:

[roy.nz]

I fully agree with police chases. And its not the police chasing that are causing the accidents its the dickheads that are doing the running. :angry:

[Genestho]

turning up at their home address a few hours later or the next day to breath test them isn't exactly legal or effective.
As it is currently, lawyers boast in advertising of getting drink drivers off or lesser sentences on procedural technicalities, they'll be rubbing their in hands in glee over that one..



Make it evading dui tests by presumption (?) and automatic higher penalty of not found to be testable within time.

So by your latest idea - you propose we sit back, do nothing, watch dangerous drivers meander across centrelines and put public at risk until they crash - or not.....?

How does an officer distinguish (and prove ) between a drunk or a murderer/armed robber/ pick a crime; running across town through redlights, into oncoming traffic - therefore a danger to public without apprehension?

Unfortunately speeding is usually the first alarm and leads to a bigger catch or can save lives ie, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10670375

If people want to speed that is at their risk, having a lifetime of Motorcycling background, I know it's extremely easy to get up to speed, but if we are to catch the worst of crimes a consequence for speeding or evasion must stay.

Even if you pick a scenario of a driver running from a booze bus, you still couldn't prove the driver over the limit (unless crashing), even if that driver ie, was a known disqualified recidivist drink driver by police.
Known is not evidence

It's hard enough as it is now to secure consistant and meaningful sentencing options, you want to make it even harder?

Sorry, I don't support ending 'trivial' pursuits, however I do support any measures that can enhance apprehension with minimal loss of innocent lives, mutual respect for both drivers and police, and accountability for actions whether it be an officer making a bad judgment call, or a fleeing driver.

I believe the benefits far outway the risks.

I believe I am done here.

[candor]

No I never proposed do nothing - avoid speed pursuits/employ the other options. As more progressive countries do with stunning results. All I'm saying is that the IPCA did not pull its recommendations from a vacuum. It put months into examining 6 years of crashes and years of scientific studies. The findings were more than interesting even if they do blow some minds - and I'm glad people have mulled them over thoroughly whatever their personal views.
TGW, even if our lot don't achieve the things we aim for, I hope that pushing on this does at least achieve what you are supporting - as in use of every tool capable of enhancing safety while apprehending where risks are high. There's a lot of things short of abandoning pursuits - some we've touched on, others not covered here that would be advances able to save many lives. I don't think the report dealt wth those things though possibly it did in the draft form or supplementary advice to Police.
I'm prolly done here too as the negativity from some is not my idea of having a good day. But if people want to carry on discussing detailed ideas for improvements I'm still in. Thx to those giving the green rep - I can't see who is giving rep.

[candor]

Pursuits for suspected impaired driving end in crashes 48% of the time (Auten 1994). One pursuit of a DUI suspect puts 100’s of lives at risk due to added speed and adrenalin experts comment. Their odds of crashing are greatly increased versus on any non pursuit trip as statistically it’s neither likely or probable that each event of driving under influence will end in a crash.

Justice Goddard

“during the five years to 19 December 2008... 24 people died in Police pursuits, 90 resulted in serious injury. Most of the pursuits were started over traffic offending, though 31 were started over known or suspected criminal offending (mostly car conversion and other property offences). Relatively few pursuits uncovered evidence of serious crimes other than those associated with the offender's driving during the pursuit.” (Justice Goddard, IPCA report 2009)



Re how do cops distinguish between fugitives who are murderers, not big fish etc - I don't think that matters or that we want Police assuming the worst on a regular basis (the hysteria monster) - most new evidence founded policies just encompass awareness it is overall better not to chase most runners based on stats like these. Stats showing no major crime is the norm until after a chase creates one. Our lawyer today called it racing - said cops speeding with other cars in a 50k zone is racing. It's about adding gasoline to the fire - or not. I'd chose maximised safety over certainty of conviction anyday. Its not like convictions under current laws save lives - given the usual wet bus ticket slap, and increasing risk to life to nab someone loony enough to think they can come out on top isn't sensible.

[marty]

Now you're quoting yourself? I thought you were done?

[BoristheBiter]

All I'm saying is that the IPCA did not pull its recommendations from a vacuum.
.

No they generally pull them out of some librial's arse like yourself.

[candor]

Did you get that info from your disaffected MoT mate?

A refusal carries the same penalties as eba - refuse a screening test, you'll be arrested on the roadside. refuse the breath test, you go straight to blood. refuse a blood test, you'll be immediately suspended, and charged with refusing, which presumes you blood level is above the limit.

3rd and subsequent refusing carries the same penalties as 3rd and subsequent eba. Impairment driving draws the same penalties.

Really.

http://legislation.knowledge-basket.co.nz/gpacts/reprint/text/2005/an/046.html
Section 61 causing death over evidential breath or blood alcohol limit – max penalty 5 years and max fine 20g
Section 62 causing death where section 61 doesn’t apply (this means alcohol test evaders) – max penalty 3 years or max fine 10g + max penalties for refusing tests of 3months and of $4500

The advantage for an impaired driving killer of a test refusal is a potential saving of $5,500 and of 1 year 9 months knocked off with cumulative sentencing - more for concurrent. Though I can see the merit of keeping this secret per Martys post - I just think it needs to change, overseas a refusal gets a tougher penalty than testing guilty, as guilt is then presumed
Members of sensible sentencig have been in the position of a well informed killer repeat disqualified impaired driver refusing the test so getting a softer wet bus ticket slap.

[candor]

No they generally pull them out of some librial's arse like yourself.
Only to be criticised by post modern members of the third reich

Po po Pope humbled by findings re murder victim and striving to improve Police customer service delivery
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10644868

[DMNTD]

So then...who's up for this protest? :shifty:

[Number One]

So then...who's up for this protest? :shifty:

Nah - weathers shite here I might ruin my hair do...

[Patrick]

....E-ml from anon long standing cop
"...around 2am on Sun 28 Feb I went to a 24 x 7 restaurant called "Dennys" in the city, on the corner of Moorhouse Ave and Manchester Street (where the media release says the above crash occurred).

....... On each occasion it headed West up Moorhouse Ave and my belief and interpretation at that time, was that this Police Car was waiting to chase cars it wanted to stop by 1. watching out for "suspicious"? cars crossing that junction (ie: cars driving along Moorhouse from East to West) and then 2. Turning onto Moorhouse with siren blazing and accelerating off at speed. Let's just say it appeared to be a "strategic" position to enact this kind of targeting and chasing. Moorhouse Ave is a wide road, with a number of lanes and is a straight road with many sets of lights......".

Dennys - a restaurant????? ROFL.....

And just to put it out there... perhaps the patrol had 1) a laser, or 2) was stopping red light runners...? Two probabilities that your "long serving MOT mate" didn't seem to even consider... Definitely not cop.


You're welcome to call it - but that is from a cop. Maybe they change dialect talking to civvys. Its an e-ml not a report... by an MoT who is unhappy about amalgamation.

No need to scream Lurch - you want empirical evidence sources - see post 60. You don't want, find a sand-pit.

He is not a cop. There are spoken/typed words and phrases that are fairly easy to spot, that "dialect" you speak of. Drives my wife nuts, when cops speak about stuff....

In that, there is nothing. If he is disgruntled since the merger in 1992, he should have gone a long time ago.


..... It could be argued that if the punishment was more severe, for example imprisonment, this may provide some deterrence for those determined to engage Police in pursuits at any opportunity: provided of course, Police can apprehend them.
This lack of deterrence is backed by figures provided by the Police Prosecution Service.

For the period January 2006 to December 2008, the average number of failing to stop offences per year was 2,521.

However, the number of these that went through the court process yet had no sentence imposed was very high: 2006, 73.5%; 2007, 74.2%; and 2008, 73.8%.

A court disqualification was imposed on average over the three years, for only 5.4% of convictions.
This is incredibly low for an offence that can have such serious consequences."[/I]

I also note in the IPCA link, the last line is:

"It is also important to acknowledge that pursuits start when drivers fail to respect the law and stop for Police.
When pursuits end badly, it is those drivers who must bear the responsibility.”

In a nut shell.... Well spotted.


Make it evading dui tests by presumption (?) and automatic higher penalty of not found to be testable within time. Right now the max fine is thousands lower if you decline a test and just get the refusal charge. Reverse that situation. These sorts of things are why heads need to get together.

No it aint... Completely wrong.


FFS - the amalgamation was in 1990 - he needs to move on or fuck off. I said it wasn't a report from a cop.

1992 mate.... 18 years ago.... and I agree. No cop.


Did you get that info from your disaffected MoT mate?

A refusal carries the same penalties as eba - refuse a screening test, you'll be arrested on the roadside. refuse the breath test, you go straight to blood. refuse a blood test, you'll be immediately suspended, and charged with refusing, which presumes you blood level is above the limit.

3rd and subsequent refusing carries the same penalties as 3rd and subsequent eba. Impairment driving draws the same penalties.

Just to rectify, Marty... one can refuse a screening test. You would then be required to accompany, that you can not refuse, do so and be arrested for refusing to accompany - penalties same as a drunk driver. You can then refuse an evidential breath test but will have to do the blood. Refuse that and you will be arrested, penalties same as a drunk driver.


.... I will shortly be meeting with the sender of the e-ml which I fail to understand why its excited anyone, and will then be able to learn their full Police or (as you'd have it) Police impersonator history. Normally when ppl e-mail I don't ask for a scan of their badge.

Someone is having someone on....

Love the "Helen" call though - ROFL


Really.

Section 61 causing death over evidential breath or blood alcohol limit – max penalty 5 years and max fine 20g
Section 62 causing death where section 61 doesn’t apply (this means alcohol test evaders)

This doesn't mean that at all.... It means, those who caused death where alcohol was not a factor.

[candor]

So you are trying to say that you can successfully convict on section 61 (killing while over the limit) with no breath or blood evidence. I've never seen that fly, I have seen section 62's (the lesser charge) fly after test refusals by people almost certainly drunk. I find your reading of the apparent loophole as not being one strange, given that having no forensic evidence would produce reasonable doubt. A 62 conviction doesn't state someone must be proved not over limit or that "alcohol was not a factor" as you say, just that they must not fit with a 61 which alternate charge specifically requires the charged person to be over limit. That would require scientific proof I'm sure.
An untested DUI would surely by default land in 61, as prosecutors would be reluctant to charge on 61 with insufficient evidence.
Will put it by a defense lawyer for clarification.

[candor]

Dennys - a restaurant????? ROFL.....


Someone is having someone on....

]
With you all doubting this character you've got me concerned, but why the heck would someone want to have me on... the person seems genuine enough, I'll make sure then to meet in a public place for my own safety in case they are not kosha :shit:.

[davereid]

With you all doubting this character you've got me concerned, but why the heck would someone want to have me on... the person seems genuine enough, I'll make sure then to meet in a public place for my own safety in case they are not kosha :shit:.


A good idea. You passionately support your cause, which may (certainly does) mean you are not universally popular.

[Patrick]

So you are trying to say that you can successfully convict on section 61 (killing while over the limit) with no breath or blood evidence. I've never seen that fly, I have seen section 62's (the lesser charge) fly after test refusals by people almost certainly drunk. I find your reading of the apparent loophole as not being one strange, given that having no forensic evidence would produce reasonable doubt. A 62 conviction doesn't state someone must be proved not over limit or that "alcohol was not a factor" as you say, just that they must not fit with a 61 which alternate charge specifically requires the charged person to be over limit. That would require scientific proof I'm sure.
An untested DUI would surely by default land in 61, as prosecutors would be reluctant to charge on 61 with insufficient evidence.
Will put it by a defense lawyer for clarification.

On reading what you've supplied, you might be on to something there... it just doesn't read right though.... I might be wrong with what I originally thought....:innocent::doh: but will have to look it up later at work... not now...


With you all doubting this character you've got me concerned, but why the heck would someone want to have me on... the person seems genuine enough, I'll make sure then to meet in a public place for my own safety in case they are not kosha :shit:.

Only looking out for your best interests....

Your approach blaming the Police is wrong. If I read what you are saying correctly, you're blaming the tools we don't have....? Is this a better approach?

[marty]

Really.

http://legislation.knowledge-basket.co.nz/gpacts/reprint/text/2005/an/046.html
.


when I posted you had not discussed the refusal causing death situation. I was already well aware of the penalty differences for the causing death situations, having been involved in multiple investigations of this nature. I have unfortunately been involved pretty closely in a couple of pursuits that have resulted in fatals so believe me - I have a reasonably deep knowledge of the consequences.

I would like to know how you would have dealt with the pursuit in Dunedin last night.

[marty]

Just to rectify, Marty... one can refuse a screening test. You would then be required to accompany, that you can not refuse, do so and be arrested for refusing to accompany - penalties same as a drunk driver. You can then refuse an evidential breath test but will have to do the blood. Refuse that and you will be arrested, penalties same as a drunk driver.





I'm pretty sure that's what I said. You CAN refuse everything, there's just consequences.

And yeah - 1992. Just seemed longer than that :)

[candor]

Your approach blaming the Police is wrong. If I read what you are saying correctly, you're blaming the tools we don't have....? Is this a better approach?

It may be offensive but it could be effective... who knows. Trust me I have no blaming or animosity, it upsets me every time a preventable toll death happens as I well know it does most cops.
I do blame backward policy and tools and see cops as victims of it - not helped by what appears to be a deep conservatism that is suspicious of change. If it has to be packaged as cop blaming (en masse not as individuals) to draw attention to it because that is how most people will most easily latch on to the subject - rather than talking about policy which requires long drawn out jargon and powerpoints etc which turns most audiences off (thread case in point), then so be that one of the tactics. Trust me it is a scary tactic - it's not like I really crave 10,000 badged up ticket book toting enemies. I come from a union background so my specialty is noise :2guns: Childhood nick - sirenmouth

I do note the screwing round over other modern tools including vests so if Govt doesn't care about cops lives it is surely a strtetch to ask them to give cops tools and guidelines to preserve road users lives.

[candor]

when I posted you had not discussed the refusal causing death situation. I was already well aware of the penalty differences for the causing death situations,

I would like to know how you would have dealt with the pursuit in Dunedin last night.

So if that is the case maybe it'll need raising when the current penalty increase is going through select committee. Not familiar with that one in Dun. and that is probably a complex question as so much enters into weighting risks in any chase. I wouldn't like to venture an opinion on just one case as I think the law of averages needs to be considered, in policy, as is the thrust of our "jumping up and down". There may be exceptions to rules but I believe the general rule is to avoid high speed pursuits over infringements - so without knowing case details I hope that answers your Q. If not addressing the matter well pls throw me some more details.

Such Q's though are really better addressed to experts like Dr Geoff Alpert, as I'd only consider myself a well informed fan of such luminaries who sees bulk room for improvements....

Your prior post on "ways and means" to get tests donelike the hospital based provision had me thinking cops should insist with cuffs that all killer drivers get a medical checkup - for their own good of course (cuff rash).

[Brian d marge]

Rednecks in a position of power ...bound to end in tears

Stephen

BTW how much we got in the general tax collection kitty now , has to be enough for Stickup Morgan to buy a new pair of underpants again

Stephen

[marty]

So if that is the case maybe it'll need raising when the current penalty increase is going through select committee. Not familiar with that one in Dun. and that is probably a complex question as so much enters into weighting risks in any chase. I wouldn't like to venture an opinion on just one case as I think the law of averages needs to be considered, in policy, as is the thrust of our "jumping up and down". There may be exceptions to rules but I believe the general rule is to avoid high speed pursuits over infringements - so without knowing case details I hope that answers your Q. If not addressing the matter well pls throw me some more details.

Such Q's though are really better addressed to experts like Dr Geoff Alpert, as I'd only consider myself a well informed fan of such luminaries who sees bulk room for improvements....

Your prior post on "ways and means" to get tests donelike the hospital based provision had me thinking cops should insist with cuffs that all killer drivers get a medical checkup - for their own good of course (cuff rash).

You have a split second to decide whether to give chase or not: http://www.odt.co.nz/your-town/mosgiel/124399/drinking-session-sparks-mosgiel-police-chase-drama

Now your last paragraph - gee what a good idea :innocent:

[candor]

It wouldn't take me so long as a split sec to decide that "person" needed chasin'
Per prior posts our protest excludes chases of violent offenders - still, proceed with care until you catch up with the guy anyway.

[BoristheBiter]

It wouldn't take me so long as a split sec to decide that "person" needed chasin'
Per prior posts our protest excludes chases of violent offenders - still, proceed with care until you catch up with the guy anyway.

you still have no idea do you? i guess thats your union background for ya.

Could you see the headlines the next day, "Cops let druck driver get away after killing wife". the media would have a field day with that, and the public for that matter.

the reason for or against can only be made by the people on the ground at that time. (or coms)
the reasons are just the same for why people run.

You have come up with no sound reason to stop pursuits, just more interferance by people making comments on subjects they have no idea about.

[candor]

Did u get that I said I supported that chase? You sound like a close minded cop to me.

[BoristheBiter]

Did u get that I said I supported that chase? You sound like a close minded cop to me.

How do you choose? that is the point.
Its allright for armchair lawyers to crawl all over something after the fact, try being there.

if you take the pursuits away from police no one will stop, why would they? to get a ticket maybe over the limit, just put your foot down, hide at home for awhile.

in a nice world we would not have ay need for cops but this is the real world, there are bad people and shit happens.
In your long winded rant at the begining did you talk about all the pursuits that don't end badly? no, that doesn't make for good telly does it?

[Patrick]

... If it has to be packaged as cop blaming (en masse not as individuals) to draw attention to it because that is how most people will most easily latch on to the subject - rather than talking about policy which requires long drawn out jargon and powerpoints etc which turns most audiences off ....

But that is what occurred here.... How many were turned off?

Blame the fleeing driver. He was the cause in the beginning, and still is in the end, the cause of the deaths. Solely and sigularly.

[marty]

It wouldn't take me so long as a split sec to decide that "person" needed chasin'
Per prior posts our protest excludes chases of violent offenders - still, proceed with care until you catch up with the guy anyway.

so how long after the violence event should the chase still be allowed to occur? 1 hour? 1 day? 1 week? What if the offender had kicked a kid to death, then 3 weeks later a vehicle was caught speeding on SH1 at Cambridge, but the cop didn't know that the bad guy was in it, but the cop got the rego and found it was registered to a person of interest, and the driver did a runner, but the driver wasn't the killer - the killer was just a passenger - but the cop wasn't 100% sure the bad guy was even in the car?

again, you have a very short time frame in which to make what could be a life changing decision.

[candor]

I dunno. I'd trust the cops to make that call on how long after the violent event, 30 years may be pushing it.
Gawd thats inventive - it would stuill seem reasonable to me to chase in that scenario as it is in good faith one would be thinking the driver was a person of interest. But are persons of interest able to be formally distinguished by the seriousness of the catch ie violent offense suspect versus non traffic ticket payer... is there like a red flag code for serious offenders in the system? Or is it just in verbal handovers or wanted posters etc that you are made aware of who current "most wanteds" are.

[scumdog]

There wouldn't be so much of this if our laws dealt with offenders first or second time round - N.Y. confiscates cars and ensures dicks stay off the road... basics missing etc etc

But...but...if you did a runner and the law was as you seem to think it should be there would be NO offenders caught, would there?

[BoristheBiter]

I dunno. I'd trust the cops to make that call on how long after the violent event, 30 years may be pushing it.
Gawd thats inventive - it would stuill seem reasonable to me to chase in that scenario as it is in good faith one would be thinking the driver was a person of interest. But are persons of interest able to be formally distinguished by the seriousness of the catch ie violent offense suspect versus non traffic ticket payer... is there like a red flag code for serious offenders in the system? Or is it just in verbal handovers or wanted posters etc that you are made aware of who current "most wanteds" are.

Until there is a crash and you go and have a little protest.
You can't have it both ways, either you want police to continue pursuits or not.

[candor]

BS - its not an "yes anything goes" or a "no chase ever allowed" choice. As you would know there are varying levels of restrictiveness available to those setting chase policy. Bites?

[candor]

But...but...if you did a runner and the law was as you seem to think it should be there would be NO offenders caught, would there?

Is the goal apprehension or protecting life? Why did we need to go from issuing 100,000 speeding tickets to nearly 10x that yrly in a few short years - why has a 50% increase in road police hours only "altered" highway based crashes from 1.6 billion in costs to 1.6 billion in social costs of crashes by MoT methodology (Police progress report) and taken ACCs future crash claim liabilities on current account from 2Billion to 7 Billion since 2002? Why does the AA say the more tickets the more trauma...
This is turning into a donut thread... but again check the experience in Canada, there was no increase in runners when heavuily prohibitive chase policy was bought in, 100 still ran but 40000 continued stopping per year. No increased general crime, reduced road trauma. Win - win, except for those who like a good chase. The sky won't fall if some KBer or many even who might creep 10 k over the speed limit fails to stop and isn't hunted down like the dog he is to take his medicine (dead or alive). Work smart, work less cleaning up at crash scenes, less overtime could become an issue...?

[scumdog]

This is turning into a donut thread... but again check the experience in Canada, there was no increase in runners when heavuily prohibitive chase policy was bought in, 100 still ran but 40000 continued stopping per year. No increased general crime, reduced road trauma. Win - win, except for those who like a good chase. The sky won't fall if some KBer or many even who might creep 10 k over the speed limit fails to stop and isn't hunted down like the dog he is to take his medicine (dead or alive). Work smart, work less cleaning up at crash scenes, less overtime could become an issue...?

So when does a chase become one?

I suspect if there was a 'no chase' policy there would be a real liklihood that 'non-stoppers' would not be reported if police did not really get into a chase.

i.e: Cop starts after car for whatever reason, car does not stop and increases speed to over speed limit, cop drops back to original speed, shrugs shoulders and thinks "meh, another one away, no point in reporting it".

So then the figures showing that figures for failing to stop by drivers would be skewed.

[candor]

Yep - figures can be played with including Police sometimes trying to say a chase wasn't on when it did all turn to custard. The main ones to take account of though are surely the final toll figures as they relate to varying approaches to chases. Depends where the emphasis is - should we judge Police success by numbers of folk caught and processed, or by level of harm which may have no direct relationship. Domestic violence can be resolved with out prosecution numbers necessarily being the measure of success. As in Police can use alternate processes to reduce recidivism or harm. Showing less convictions but also maybe less domestic violence murders regardless because they dealt with complaints by other means.

[marty]

You don't want cops to chase, but perhaps you do. It depends. Possibly. You'd trust the cops to make that call.

What exactly is it that you want?

[marty]

Yep - figures can be played with including Police sometimes trying to say a chase wasn't on when it did all turn to custard. The main ones to take account of though are surely the final toll figures as they relate to varying approaches to chases. Depends where the emphasis is - should we judge Police success by numbers of folk caught and processed, or by level of harm which may have no direct relationship. Domestic violence can be resolved with out prosecution numbers necessarily being the measure of success. As in Police can use alternate processes to reduce recidivism or harm. Showing less convictions but also maybe less domestic violence murders regardless because they dealt with complaints by other means.

You really are living in fantasy land.

How do you suggest domestic violence is dealt with in a way that doesn't involve punitive action?

The Police aren't there for education and giving out lollipops. They are the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. They're the ones left at the fight to clean it up after everyone else has fucked off. They're the ones running towards the gunshots when everyone is is running away. There are other agencies that have cupboards full of hugs and icecream - the Police do not. It's like saying - St John Ambulance should be helping people not have heart attacks/car crashes/get stabbed. No one does, because it's not their role. We employ our Police to keep us safe - to kick bad guys' arses. Unfortunately bleeding heart greenies and soft-cock judges over the past 10 years have pushed them into a 'justfication for farting' culture.

[candor]

What's wanted - a more sophisticated policy that cuts chases back from current excessive levels by working on both ends ie look at offender climate modoifications and look at altering discretion and chase indications. The present high chase level is a recent development and doesn't need depending on for the job to get done. More needs doing to ask why and to turn it round. And doing of that with a good faith not blaming attitude. I appreciate that some cops here are actually discussing the issues. Its a darn sight better than the attitude you get from heirarchy on making official approaches.

Just trying to draw an analogy in the dom violence if not a good one. In some ways you're right imo, in other ways not. Cos that idea you're called to account on every policing move is a generalisation... With no enforceable bill of rights, & no realistic prospects of citizens bringing civil action the toothless IPCA is all we've got to keep the force honest. The proportion of IPCA recommendations that are uptaken is not so great. Senior Police (Rob P) currently under IPCA investigation are even known to scoff in the media in response to recommendations made. This is a poor attitude toward an advice body .

Police under the current system do always get the final say on proposed culture changes. The IPCA is pro police not "independent", being largely made up of them. So it has not yet taken one of multiple formal written refusals by the Police Commiss to uptake it's recommendations up with Parliament by reporting concerns re any refusal. As was intended and allowed for in the legislation, in the expectation that Police with their own lens and natural biases might not always agree with the IPCA where doing so would be best... so necessitating adjudication by the House of Representatives.

Currently & remarkably Police have not been challenged by their IPCA buddies in having their final say on whether they'll uptake recommendations on even one occasion. So while there may be a perception liberals are pushing Police around, they've achieved zip and the doors open for a Police State if that is Collins desire.

Q - are Police hypersensitive to criticism because they get flogged excessively and thanked infrequently? When my mate walked through town in a costume uniform the other day she got a lot of abuse and heckling from thugs not realising its a costume. Could make life hard wearing blue especially as a female. Nurses get roses.

[BoristheBiter]

Is the goal apprehension or protecting life? Why did we need to go from issuing 100,000 speeding tickets to nearly 10x that yrly in a few short years - why has a 50% increase in road police hours only "altered" highway based crashes from 1.6 billion in costs to 1.6 billion in social costs of crashes by MoT methodology (Police progress report) and taken ACCs future crash claim liabilities on current account from 2Billion to 7 Billion since 2002? Why does the AA say the more tickets the more trauma...
This is turning into a donut thread... but again check the experience in Canada, there was no increase in runners when heavuily prohibitive chase policy was bought in, 100 still ran but 40000 continued stopping per year. No increased general crime, reduced road trauma. Win - win, except for those who like a good chase. The sky won't fall if some KBer or many even who might creep 10 k over the speed limit fails to stop and isn't hunted down like the dog he is to take his medicine (dead or alive). Work smart, work less cleaning up at crash scenes, less overtime could become an issue...?

Your dumber than it would appear, of course its about apprehension. why else would you chase someone?

[marty]

Q - are Police hypersensitive to criticism because they get flogged excessively and thanked infrequently? When my mate walked through town in a costume uniform the other day she got a lot of abuse and heckling from thugs not realising its a costume. Could make life hard wearing blue especially as a female. Nurses get roses.

Not hypersensitive to critisism. Just intolerant of fuckwits.

[davereid]

Is the goal apprehension or protecting life?

Why did we need to go from issuing 100,000 speeding tickets to nearly 10x that yrly in a few short years - why has a 50% increase in road police hours only "altered" highway based crashes from 1.6 billion in costs to 1.6 billion in social costs of crashes by MoT methodology (Police progress report) and taken ACCs future crash claim liabilities on current account from 2Billion to 7 Billion since 2002?

Why does the AA say the more tickets the more trauma...

Iin Canada, there was no increase in runners when heavuily prohibitive chase policy was bought in, 100 still ran but 40000 continued stopping per year.

I think we worked out years ago that heavy road policing makes very little difference in outcomes.

With the exception of reducing average speeds, which has made a difference (at least to the survivability) of a crash, most accidents are the result of a mistake - not a deliberate decision by a driver to do something risky.

Indeed, lowering average speeds may have caused some drivers to overtake when stuck behind slow traffic.

IMHO Improvements in the road toll can be attributed mostly to better accident survivability due to vehicle design. I have looked but can't find raw crash data, that would show if our accident rate has changed.

Even if we can show that accident rates are essentially unchanged, and that heavy policing has been a waste of time, the outcome for pursuits will be the same.

There will be no change to police pursuit policy, until such a time as a school bus, or something similar is wiped out.

Then then change will be driven by government, which will have little choice.

We can only hope that in NZ, we find a restrictive pursuit policy works as well as it does in Canada.

[BoristheBiter]

We can only hope that in NZ, we find a restrictive pursuit policy works as well as it does in Canada.

Well seeing that you and candor love spouting on about how good the Canadian laws are why are you still here?

Its all well and good going on about other country's but we are not Canada, we are not USA neither are we Australia so stop going on about what works in other places as we have taken on other counrty's great plans and have end in a complete waste of time.

[Patrick]

... When my mate walked through town in a costume uniform the other day she got a lot of abuse and heckling from thugs not realising its a costume.

Get real..... "costume" Uniforms and real ones are quite different, and these "thugs" know that..... hence the heckling....?

[Patrick]

....check the experience in Canada, there was no increase in runners when heavuily prohibitive chase policy was bought in, 100 still ran but 40000 continued stopping per year.

1 in 400 stops turned into runners you say? That would be far more than in NZ....

[marty]

We can only hope that in NZ, we find a restrictive pursuit policy works as well as it does in Canada.


have you ever driving in Canada? Multi-lane separated freeways, ready access to aircraft, and if you're not near a city there's 1000's of km of fuck all.

[candor]

There will be no change to police pursuit policy, until such a time as a school bus, or something similar is wiped out.



There are angles to work. How is it compatible with the human rights legislation that says Govt policies can't deprive of the right to life or actively injure people - having chase policy that per peer reviewed research increases the baseline inury risk exposure of target and the Public. Also they have not amended the law to make it permissible for Police to speed/race etc any more than for PMs late for Rugby. Just some examples of a lot of angles that could be worked...

[Patrick]

There are angles to work. How is it compatible with the human rights legislation that says Govt policies can't deprive of the right to life or actively injure people - having chase policy that per peer reviewed research increases the baseline inury risk exposure of target and the Public. Also they have not amended the law to make it permissible for Police to speed/race etc any more than for PMs late for Rugby. Just some examples of a lot of angles that could be worked...

er what??????????????

1 in 400 in your beloved Canada is far worse than here.

There is a legal exemption already, to exceed the speed limits in the execution of the urgent duty of their work. Still illegal to race to the rugby though....

[scumdog]

There are angles to work. How is it compatible with the human rights legislation that says Govt policies can't deprive of the right to life or actively injure people - having chase policy that per peer reviewed research increases the baseline inury risk exposure of target and the Public. Also they have not amended the law to make it permissible for Police to speed/race etc any more than for PMs late for Rugby. Just some examples of a lot of angles that could be worked...

Well. do you want people to stop for Police or not?
And if you do and they don't stop do you accept that Police might just have to chase after them? - (even if in a Pollyana world that you are starting to describe it's just so they can tell all the other Police where to wait in ambush with their roadspikes)

[red mermaid]

Back in the 1980's a loophole was discovered in drink drive law and Traffic Officers were not able to pursue offenders onto private property.

Virtually overnight every car that I signalled to stop made a dash stright for the nearest piece of private property, whereupon I waved goodbye to them and that was the end of the matter.

Do we want to go back to that situation with this crackpot idea of no pursuits, because that is where it will go.

[candor]

er what??????????????

1 in 400 in your beloved Canada is far worse than here.

....

Apples and oranges - 1 in 400 is out of a radically reduced number of chases over there in the first place.
I think there is a misunderstanding here - we're not actually advocating for no pursuits - it's for regular alternatives to rampant high speed ones, that will still in smarter ways usually result in apprehension of those who have it coming, on the whole. All this debate has accentuated to me is that alternatives require tech and big resourcing - but where there's a will there could be a way. Fundraisers for starchase gifts to police is one thought.

Negativity today emanating from State sector bureaucrats included messages that the Nat Ministers are like Autism sufferers and hard to distract from 3 or 4 god awful preoccupations, because they hit the ground running and bit off more populist aims than they can chew, so emergent issues are swept aside.

The bad boys and girls can be outwitted without the theatre-sports of Boss Hogg reruns, look at South Oz & others who're using alternative methods. Its called moving with the times I reckon.

[scumdog]

The bad boys and girls can be outwitted without the theatre-sports of Boss Hogg reruns, look at South Oz & others who're using alternative methods. Its called moving with the times I reckon.

Pffft!
NZ 'drivers' need to move with the times, they have a strangle-hold on immaturity...

[candor]

Pffft!
NZ 'drivers' need to move with the times, they have a strangle-hold on immaturity...

They are 15 or less - only the Inuit Eskimos have a lower driving age of 10, so its to be expected.

What led to starchase in S.A.? 4 people killed in one chase including a family of 3 - all for a stolen car driven by a prior serious crasher mutant - WTF he wasn't eva gonna stop with u after him Mr Cop!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/22/2853173.htm Expert says keep doing some pursuits but...

He recommended against pursuits for minor traffic offences and says that alone has halved the number of police pursuits in Queensland.

"There's good evidence to suggest that police shouldn't be pursuing for traffic offences," he said.

[scumdog]

He recommended against pursuits for minor traffic offences and says that alone has halved the number of police pursuits in Queensland.

"There's good evidence to suggest that police shouldn't be pursuing for traffic offences," he said.

So...if it is only a 'minor' traffic offence then it guarantees there is no other hidden offence hence no reason to pursue?
So a wanted criminal in a stolen car who had just committed a robbery would not be pursued if they (for example) were not wearing a seatbelt and who took off when the officer indicated he should pull over because he had been seen not wearing his seatbelt??

[candor]

Now who's fantasising. Most times it is what it is - no seatbelt is not a clue to identify an axe murderer any more than a creepy lack of interpersonal warmth makes Watson a psycho killer. Suspicious minds you lot have. The body in the boot fallacy is covered in Justice Goddards report.

Wondering when Munsters red rep trigger finger will tire - don't forget this post too!

[BoristheBiter]

it doesn't allow us to give out more than one red rep per person.

[miloking]

When I was 16 years old I got chased by the fuzz on my Suzuki GT380, cause I was speeding

.........

I could have easily died that day:yes:.

but you didnt and now you have great experience and awesome story to tell....dont rob the next generations of having that chance please!

[candor]

it doesn't allow us to give out more than one red rep per person.

Then he's cracked the code - try 6 (about half my reds all from one indiv).

[candor]

And slightly off topic. Ethical dilemna.

What do you do if Police aren't your friends (in fact you're apparently so annoying they like hanging out with your enemies in balaclavas, stalking you just to freak you out - linky below) and your brother was a cop or suchlike who you report to the cops complaint agency for manslaughter based on a rumour, but they tell you they can't investigate as it was over a year ago so you'd best REPORT IT TO POLICE
http://bcops.wordpress.com/2008/07/10/apologies/

... do you just give up on getting your brother put away? Or do you go see the cop who likes donning balaclavas to tease you and request your brothers arrest?

Seriously weird police conduct (too weird for IPCA) - alleged cop in balaclava "testing (a frequent complainers) reaction time" - clearly cops in that region have too much time on hands.
http://bcops.wordpress.com/2006/11/26/09-agent-provocateur/

[davereid]

have you ever driving in Canada? Multi-lane separated freeways, ready access to aircraft, and if you're not near a city there's 1000's of km of fuck all.

Marty, I wasn't advocating the Canadian system.

My views on this haven't really changed.. and I have been trying to contribute valuably, although as it has been spread over several pages perhaps it is not that clear.

To recap :

1) When we massively increased penalties for relatively small offences, we created a motive for some drivers to fail to stop.

2) When we massively increased enforcement, we created more police - "customer" contacts which increased the number of times a fail to stop might occur.

3) We didn't back up our increased enforcement with any increase in our ability to apprehend. So the cat has now learned it can get away from our attempts to herd it.

ONLY THE FLEEING DRIVER can stop pursuits starting, and nothing discussed in this thread has addressed that.


Its my opinion that there are only a few ways we can address this.

1) We must change the perception in the fleeing drivers mind that he will get away.

I have advocated an increase in the number of motorcycle cops for this reason.

Just like a helicopter, they can't actually run a driver off the road. But very few boy-racers think their turbo-pop car will out run a helicopter, or a superbike.

Remember the most important thing is the certainty of being caught.

Large penalties are generally a signal that fear is being used as an alternative to actual ability to apprehend.

For example...
If the penalty for downloading music illegally off the internet was $100,000, but no one had ever been prosecuted, and everyone knew their was no no way of identifying who was doing the download, then I think downloads would continue.

But if the penalty for an illegal download was $50, and everyone knew they would be caught every single time they did it, illegal downloads would cease.

2) We must change the balance of motive to flee, by reducing the penalties for smaller offences, and increasing the penalties for fleeing. Without showing the desperation evidenced in the example above.

My comment about the Canadian "don't chase" policy was not advocating it.

I was pointing out, that eventually with car chases, we know that innocent people will be killed or injured.

If a school bus load of kids is killed, police will lose the right to chase regardless of the fact that the chase was caused by a criminal.

Politicians wont consider the facts, they will just react.

How many innocent people would need to be shot by police each year, before police were banned from shooting at a suspect running away ?

[marty]

Nicely written. Personally I don't believe in reducing penalty - will end up with no-one caring. Huge penatlies? Maybe - you don't abuse your licence in some Euro countries as it costs so much to get in the first place and is a privelege not a right.

TBH I don't know the answer - it's a bit like cops carrying guns here. The munters that pass as bad guys here - when they get a gun pointed at them - have a habit (from experience) of saying - 'go on then pig - shoot me' - they just don't get it.

[scumdog]

Now who's fantasising. Most times it is what it is - no seatbelt is not a clue to identify an axe murderer any more than a creepy lack of interpersonal warmth makes Watson a psycho killer. Suspicious minds you lot have. The body in the boot fallacy is covered in Justice Goddards report.

Wondering when Munsters red rep trigger finger will tire - don't forget this post too!

OK, I so haven't got an axe-murderer so far - but I have got a few drunk and disqualified drivers because they weren't wearing a seatbelt/cut a corner or some other 'minor' offence.

Some did runners and eventually gave up but I can remember two at least that crashed doing the runner only 200 metres or so from where they decided to 'fail to stop', - well before I had finished informing Comms that I was involved in a 'failed to stop' pursuit - in fact the said pursuit had barely started.

[davereid]

OK, I so haven't got an axe-murderer so far - but I have got a few drunk and disqualified drivers because they weren't wearing a seatbelt/cut a corner or some other 'minor' offence.

This bun fight between Candor and Police is actually caused by both being equally correct, but standing in different places.

At least thats how I see it.

Law Enforcements view

Police, are (quite correctly) pointing out, that their ability to enforce the law would be severely handicapped if they were not able to chase and apprehend drivers who failed to stop.

Even if those drivers had only been spotted not wearing a seat belt or cutting a corner.

The point Scumdog is making is that many of those drivers fled because they had another motive to fear police - EBA, no licence, drugs in the boot etc. (So far no axe murdered bodies found this way.)

The Public safety view

Candor is looking at it (as you would expect, given her interest area) from a public safety angle.

She is saying that every day there are hundreds of thousands of episodes of drivers speeding, not wearing a seatbelt or cutting corners, that while dangerous, don't always cause injury.

For example, for each 10,000 events of a driver not wearing a seat belt, there may be one injury.

But for every 4 police chases there is an injury.

Its an easy equation from a public safety viewpoint.

- Does the drivers current activity have a one-in-four chance of causing an injury in the next 10 minutes ? If not you cant chase.

- Will your chase increase risk of an injury to one-in-four ? If so you cant chase.

So from a public safety perspective, police chases are just a bloody disaster.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~

As a society we have two entirely different requirements to try and marry up.

Law enforcements Raison d'être is public safety.

Yet we accept that to effectively enforce the law, we may have to compromise that safety sometimes.

But if the enforcement of the law is more costly to us than its non enforcement we have destroyed our reason for the law in the first place !

And then, will abandonment of enforcement leave us with the status quo, or will the problem grow, so it is once again worth enforcing ?

In this instance its the balance that is being debated, both principles are critical parts of being civilised.

So can we please debate the subject, get off our red-rep horses and try and thrash out something useful ?

As it will be a tragedy if we abandon pursuits too early. And a tragedy if we abandon them too late.

[Kickaha]

The munters that pass as bad guys here - when they get a gun pointed at them - have a habit (from experience) of saying - 'go on then pig - shoot me' - they just don't get it.

If they've given you permission than surely you should be allowed to?

[candor]

Daves input goes beyond Justice Goddards (IPCA report). And I really like the comment about how many innocents need to get caught by Police bullets before policy changes. Same same. In reality the bunfight should be between IPCA and the Commissioner, but it seems this agency we're paying 4 million a year to analyse lethal issues & to upraise or to "balance" Police standards as reqd. is merely a figure head, like the Queen. Elsewhere it also took several inquiries or reports and a critical mas of heinous cock ups before things change. Why we have to go that track before admitting that others have found better ways forward is beyond me.

Collins is probably the glitch here, received a recent speech she did to a law firm today in which she gloats over the boy racer legislation reducing noise and making tourist hotels more convivial, in complete denial of its negative SAFETY effects. A quick google on her revealed that she got a 1993 Master of Taxation Studies (M.Tax.S.) degree :shit: and proceeded on her career pathway out of shoe sales using this special -ology, so maybe no surprises there. I can only imagine the pillow talk with her cop hubby and idea fusions.

[marty]

If they've given you permission than surely you should be allowed to?

Yaeh that'd work :) There's be a line up of suicide by cop applicants if that was the case!

[candor]

No-one's losing sleep over the minor offenders that got away without even being prompted to murder.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-chasepolicy_08met.ART0.State.Edition1.3567571.html

Top police brass said Tuesday they stand by the (Dallas) department's restrictive chase policy... (violent offenders only chased) ...
drastic reduction in deaths and injuries since the current policy was implemented in June 2006.

No innocent bystanders have been killed during a police pursuit since the policy was put in place. :Police::niceone:

Dallas police reported 361 pursuits in 2004 and 354 in 2005. That total dropped to 200 in 2006 and has plummeted further, to 70 in 2007, 39 in 2008, 31 last year and 24 so far this year.

SEEMS BY CHILLING OUT DALLAS COPS CHILLED THE TOLL OUT TOO. NOW A CHASE TALE REALLY MEANS SOMETHING.

[scumdog]

No-one's losing sleep over the minor offenders that got away without even being prompted to murder.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-chasepolicy_08met.ART0.State.Edition1.3567571.html

Top police brass said Tuesday they stand by the (Dallas) department's restrictive chase policy... (violent offenders only chased) ...
drastic reduction in deaths and injuries since the current policy was implemented in June 2006.

No innocent bystanders have been killed during a police pursuit since the policy was put in place. :Police::niceone:

Dallas police reported 361 pursuits in 2004 and 354 in 2005. That total dropped to 200 in 2006 and has plummeted further, to 70 in 2007, 39 in 2008, 31 last year and 24 so far this year.

SEEMS BY CHILLING OUT DALLAS COPS CHILLED THE TOLL OUT TOO. NOW A CHASE TALE REALLY MEANS SOMETHING.

I wonder how they tell that the person that won't stop has/has not committed a violent crime??

BTW: I arrived at the Dallas Love airport on the same day and just prior to the incident quoted in the article - at least (as in this case) the Texas cops are allowed to ram/execute PIT manouvre, unlike Kiwi cops who can only follow/chase.

[BoristheBiter]

Daves input goes beyond Justice Goddards (IPCA report). And I really like the comment about how many innocents need to get caught by Police bullets before policy changes. Same same. In reality the bunfight should be between IPCA and the Commissioner, but it seems this agency we're paying 4 million a year to analyse lethal issues & to upraise or to "balance" Police standards as reqd. is merely a figure head, like the Queen. Elsewhere it also took several inquiries or reports and a critical mas of heinous cock ups before things change. Why we have to go that track before admitting that others have found better ways forward is beyond me.

Collins is probably the glitch here, received a recent speech she did to a law firm today in which she gloats over the boy racer legislation reducing noise and making tourist hotels more convivial, in complete denial of its negative SAFETY effects. A quick google on her revealed that she got a 1993 Master of Taxation Studies (M.Tax.S.) degree :shit: and proceeded on her career pathway out of shoe sales using this special -ology, so maybe no surprises there. I can only imagine the pillow talk with her cop hubby and idea fusions.

Compairing us to the Dallas police department just shows what little bits of information you will try and find to try and justify your point.

as said above they have the ability to stop offenders by any means and have a lot more air support so this makes running not an option as the chance of getting away is reduced.
the offenders also know that if they resist they are likely to get tasered or shot therefore they are generaly more compliant.

[BoristheBiter]

Daves input goes beyond Justice Goddards (IPCA report). And I really like the comment about how many innocents need to get caught by Police bullets before policy changes. Same same. In reality the bunfight should be between IPCA and the Commissioner, but it seems this agency we're paying 4 million a year to analyse lethal issues & to upraise or to "balance" Police standards as reqd. is merely a figure head, like the Queen. Elsewhere it also took several inquiries or reports and a critical mas of heinous cock ups before things change. Why we have to go that track before admitting that others have found better ways forward is beyond me.

Collins is probably the glitch here, received a recent speech she did to a law firm today in which she gloats over the boy racer legislation reducing noise and making tourist hotels more convivial, in complete denial of its negative SAFETY effects. A quick google on her revealed that she got a 1993 Master of Taxation Studies (M.Tax.S.) degree :shit: and proceeded on her career pathway out of shoe sales using this special -ology, so maybe no surprises there. I can only imagine the pillow talk with her cop hubby and idea fusions.

Come on then miss high-and-mighty, what is your qualifications in this matter?
What masters degree do you hold??
Or are just full of hot air and BS?

[scissorhands]

Come on then miss high-and-mighty, what is your qualifications in this matter?
What masters degree do you hold??
Or are just full of hot air and BS?

Its pretty obvious to me going by the statistical information presented.....chases can kill innocents unnecessarily.

Up the penalties for doing a runner = less runners

[BoristheBiter]

Its pretty obvious to me going by the statistical information presented.....chases can kill innocents unnecessarily.

Up the penalties for doing a runner = less runners

Not the point of the post of mine you quoted but;

No people run because they think they can get away and with the laws that are in place they know that if they drive like a cock at high speed it (the pursuit) will be called off.
So they drive like a cock and crash, hurting and killing innocent parties along the way.

[candor]

I have a degree in health science from Victoria, but it doesn't take that to see that the current policy is a hash up - including for reasons like those given by Boris :blink:. If you want to be snobby about chat pals whats your qual for your hot air discharge BTB?
What this thread makes clear is that Police are working in an unsupported harsh operational environment, much like Mt Everest. So policy adjustments will need to include consideration of wide issues and maybe complementary advances to just changing "the rules of engagement", like tech and penalty and traffic law impact reviews. Obviously our toll stats show traffic law is not meeting objectives.
One thing is a given, if we present it to Collins that guns can supercede chases that'll work. I s'pose knowing that instant justice of a bullet ambling by might be quite a disincentive to all but the fool-hardiest. Swift, certain.... beats the Court system by a long shot.
Next protest - give the Police guns, give the police guns, give the police guns.... save their dogs from being heros.

[Patrick]

... the Texas cops are allowed to ram/execute PIT manouvre, unlike Kiwi cops who can only follow/chase.


Compairing us to the Dallas police department just shows what little bits of information you will try and find to try and justify your point.

as said above they have the ability to stop offenders by any means and have a lot more air support so this makes running not an option as the chance of getting away is reduced.
the offenders also know that if they resist they are likely to get tasered or shot therefore they are generaly more compliant.

Just a couple of obvious points missed, as above.....


.... that guns can supercede chases that'll work. I s'pose knowing that instant justice of a bullet ambling by might be quite a disincentive to all but the fool-hardiest. Swift, certain.... beats the Court system by a long shot.
Next protest - give the Police guns, give the police guns, give the police guns.... save their dogs from being heros.

Now you've lost me.....

Shooting fleeing drivers is better?

Instant justice of a bullet.... sounds like Khmer Rouge...?

Give the Police guns to save their dogs from being heros? Okaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy.....

[DMNTD]

Up the penalties for doing a runner = less runners

Up the penalties = the more determined people will be to get away.

[Clockwork]

OK. Just to turn this debate upon its head a litte. How many of the 13 people killed in the past twelve months were killed by or were in fact themselves violent offenders who needed to be stopped at any cost!

Seriously people, if you or any member of your "nearest and dearest" were killed by of one of thees incidents would you consider it a price worth paying on behalf of society?

[BoristheBiter]

I have a degree in health science from Victoria, but it doesn't take that to see that the current policy is a hash up - including for reasons like those given by Boris :blink:. If you want to be snobby about chat pals whats your qual for your hot air discharge BTB?
What this thread makes clear is that Police are working in an unsupported harsh operational environment, much like Mt Everest. So policy adjustments will need to include consideration of wide issues and maybe complementary advances to just changing "the rules of engagement", like tech and penalty and traffic law impact reviews. Obviously our toll stats show traffic law is not meeting objectives.
One thing is a given, if we present it to Collins that guns can supercede chases that'll work. I s'pose knowing that instant justice of a bullet ambling by might be quite a disincentive to all but the fool-hardiest. Swift, certain.... beats the Court system by a long shot.
Next protest - give the Police guns, give the police guns, give the police guns.... save their dogs from being heros.

FYI all my quals are in engineering and from knowing a few people on the front line.
what i was getting at was you bagged Collins for what she had a masters in and impliying that she couldn't do the job because of this.

I think you have stated to loose the plot a bit now as in Everset the sherpas don't run when chased.

[davereid]

Come on then miss high-and-mighty, what is your qualifications in this matter? What masters degree do you hold?? Or are just full of hot air and BS?

Hmm.

I have lots of qualifications.

But I never "brag" about my skill list. I just do the job.

So I know lots of "Modern" engineers, managers, scientists and professionals. And most of them are at best average, and usually would not have "passed" under the do it before you brag system.

I have NEVER met anyone with a degree that impressed me because of their university gained knowledge.

In fact, normally when someone attempts to convince me that they know the answer "because they have a Ph.D." I know I have just won the debate, as I have found a well educated idiot.

And anyone who disparages the efforts of someone who doesn't have the lolly scramble degrees offered by NZ Universities falls even lower in the heap.

In fact, I know lots of auto electricians that I would trust to build a nuclear power station.

But I don't know a single modern "Ph.D." that I would let change my oil.

If you profess that a "degree" is either a measurement of intelligence, ability or skill, or that opinions can be ignored if not offered by an appropriately qualified individual you are an idiot.

[candor]

A training of any kind - including some years on the planet - just imparts a vantage point.
The most useful "degreed" or post grad types I know assume little apart from what that of which they're reasonably certain, and are also open minded to input from other perspectives. They actively mull things over, never sit firm on initial positions. If education or life hasn't taught learners mind what's the point - we'd still be riding donkeys.
There are ivory tower PhDs who're full of nonsense - one even headbangs if exposed to alternate ideas, but some I consult in times of confusion are passionate truth seekers who'll look at any and all evidence trying to see the buts and bolts - usually well before putting forth a "best take" on things.

It appears to me that Collins taxation degree may have coloured her perspective on road safety and learners mind is not her bag. Llook at the tone of her speeches - no humility or uncertainty there. "She will, she will TAX you". (Freddy). Two law degrees - no common sense? There again, is the speech representative of the speaker at all in Parliament or are MPs just ghost writers tools? I know constituents who visited her found her rather a brick wall, and that incredible hulk cartoon... makes her out as a fit bride only for the Governator of California. Though disparate views on dope could break the deal. Actually she's hard to read - might be like a Winston without the Colgate smile.

PS I got a great education from a lecturer I presume was only qualified by exprience and hard out personal research yesterday. A cops wife whose child was killed leaving a school bus. She'd researched the issues, presented her view on possible changes to redice injury, and also communicated her Policeman husbands view which was different to hers, due to his pracical Policing experience. If I have it right she is a bit keen on all vehicles stopping when a bus unloads per US protocols, her hubby thought the 20k speed drop in current law was not practical or enforceable and it should raise to 40 k but a lot of other interventions like child education etc be used.
Both bereaved parents seemed to agree the 20 k rule is ineffective - and then there was input from engineers about tech and environment aids like flashing speed signage on buses (which a Police audience member said its ineffective & Transit is against as its a speed limit sign doh!) and physical changes to drop off points. Difficult given much rural terrain... it was a good session where many angles got examined.

[red mermaid]

You also said once you knew how to build a speed radar but that doesn't mean you know the first thing about sitting in a patrol car using one.




Hmm.

I have lots of qualifications.

But I never "brag" about my skill list. I just do the job.

So I know lots of "Modern" engineers, managers, scientists and professionals. And most of them are at best average, and usually would not have "passed" under the do it before you brag system.

I have NEVER met anyone with a degree that impressed me because of their university gained knowledge.

In fact, normally when someone attempts to convince me that they know the answer "because they have a Ph.D." I know I have just won the debate, as I have found a well educated idiot.

And anyone who disparages the efforts of someone who doesn't have the lolly scramble degrees offered by NZ Universities falls even lower in the heap.

In fact, I know lots of auto electricians that I would trust to build a nuclear power station.

But I don't know a single modern "Ph.D." that I would let change my oil.

If you profess that a "degree" is either a measurement of intelligence, ability or skill, or that opinions can be ignored if not offered by an appropriately qualified individual you are an idiot.

[davereid]

You also said once you knew how to build a speed radar but that doesn't mean you know the first thing about sitting in a patrol car using one.

Lol that's quite right ! You have got me there fair and square.

[marty]

No-one's losing sleep over the minor offenders that got away without even being prompted to murder.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-chasepolicy_08met.ART0.State.Edition1.3567571.html

Top police brass said Tuesday they stand by the (Dallas) department's restrictive chase policy... (violent offenders only chased) ...
drastic reduction in deaths and injuries since the current policy was implemented in June 2006.

No innocent bystanders have been killed during a police pursuit since the policy was put in place. :Police::niceone:

Dallas police reported 361 pursuits in 2004 and 354 in 2005. That total dropped to 200 in 2006 and has plummeted further, to 70 in 2007, 39 in 2008, 31 last year and 24 so far this year.

SEEMS BY CHILLING OUT DALLAS COPS CHILLED THE TOLL OUT TOO. NOW A CHASE TALE REALLY MEANS SOMETHING.

Interesting when you cut and paste only the information that you want. From the same article:

Now, the department is looking at loosening that policy and adding other reasons police can chase

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/chase-99995234.html

Who watched The Daily Show last night? John Stewart did the same thing in jest...

[wharfy]

Interesting when you cut and paste only the information that you want. From the same article:

Now, the department is looking at loosening that policy and adding other reasons police can chase

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/chase-99995234.html

Who watched The Daily Show last night? John Stewart did the same thing in jest...


Now, the department is looking at loosening that policy and adding other reasons police can chase, including deadly conduct when someone is shooting a gun in the air.

My turn to cut and paste (and add emphasis :) ) - deadly conduct and firearms offenses - That would be a good place for NZ police to start.

[candor]

Quite Wharfy. And if I see an offender and a cop engaging in the deadly conduct tango of a high speed pursuit that is putting hundys of lives at risk - may I chase them in order to try and stop them? Or maybe to let them know they are polluting the environment and putting the gas bill up. It breaches the anti cruising and go economically by parking up strategically ideal.
Back to comparing U.S. chase policies - note the massively lower numbers of chases per head of population. Could be to do with the LAWS AGAINST quotas passed in some States.

13 good reasons to change chase policy from the last year - hope that no reader is 14

Deadly force incident 1
Deadly force incident 2...

And the Police Conduct Authorities hints

[scumdog]

Quite Wharfy. And if I see an offender and a cop engaging in the deadly conduct tango of a high speed pursuit that is putting hundys of lives at risk - may I chase them in order to try and stop them? Or maybe to let them know they are polluting the environment and putting the gas bill up.

(In best Al Borland voice):"I don't thinks so Tim" :shit:(and you know it)

You're starting so sound like a greenie version of SMOKEU....:yes:

[marty]

Quite Wharfy. And if I see an offender and a cop engaging in the deadly conduct tango of a high speed pursuit that is putting hundys of lives at risk - may I chase them in order to try and stop them? Or maybe to let them know they are polluting the environment and putting the gas bill up. It breaches the anti cruising and go economically by parking up strategically ideal.
Back to comparing U.S. chase policies - note the massively lower numbers of chases per head of population. Could be to do with the LAWS AGAINST quotas passed in some States.

13 good reasons to change chase policy from the last year - hope that no reader is 14

Deadly force incident 1
Deadly force incident 2...

And the Police Conduct Authorities hints

Hundys of lives? No wonder people take you so seriously

[SMOKEU]

Back to comparing U.S. chase policies - note the massively lower numbers of chases per head of population. Could be to do with the LAWS AGAINST quotas passed in some States.


If the real criminals are in jail, then they can't be out on bail cruising the streets looking for trouble like in NZ.

[Kickaha]

If the real criminals are in jail, then they can't be out on bail cruising the streets looking for trouble like in NZ.

Yeah because where you're from is so much better :finger:

[BoristheBiter]

A training of any kind - including some years on the planet - just imparts a vantage point.
The most useful "degreed" or post grad types I know assume little apart from what that of which they're reasonably certain, and are also open minded to input from other perspectives. They actively mull things over, never sit firm on initial positions. If education or life hasn't taught learners mind what's the point - we'd still be riding donkeys.
There are ivory tower PhDs who're full of nonsense - one even headbangs if exposed to alternate ideas, but some I consult in times of confusion are passionate truth seekers who'll look at any and all evidence trying to see the buts and bolts - usually well before putting forth a "best take" on things.

It appears to me that Collins taxation degree may have coloured her perspective on road safety and learners mind is not her bag. Llook at the tone of her speeches - no humility or uncertainty there. "She will, she will TAX you". (Freddy). Two law degrees - no common sense? There again, is the speech representative of the speaker at all in Parliament or are MPs just ghost writers tools? I know constituents who visited her found her rather a brick wall, and that incredible hulk cartoon... makes her out as a fit bride only for the Governator of California. Though disparate views on dope could break the deal. Actually she's hard to read - might be like a Winston without the Colgate smile.

.

So what you are saying is everyone is wrong beacuase you are correct, is that it?

This thread will just continue to go around in circles as we all have our own veiw point.
we all exect the death of innocent parties is the biproduct of people running from the police.

Whether you make the laws tougher or weaker you will allways have innocent people dieing on the roads because of the dickheads who are out there on them,

[candor]

So what you are saying is everyone is wrong beacuase you are correct, is that it?

Whether you make the laws tougher or weaker you will allways have innocent people dieing on the roads because of the dickheads who are out there on them,

Bump following deaths of 2 more innocent captive passengers in Onehunga - teens reportedly.

Not everyone is wrong or thoughtless may be a better word - there is some support for what I'm saying, this threads content from some squeaky wheels is not representative of the quiet people who private message support or green bling.
The point is not whether there will always be innocent or other deaths - it is that they are minimised by better approaches most everywhere else.
Its just that NZ has a tard approach to road safety that promotes more dickhead actions from dickheads - which really makes us apathetic Kiwis look like dickheads who like to swim in a floodwater of blood relative to other civilised countries. Or sheep off to the works because we trust the farmer. You gotta know when to hold 'em, when to walk away...

[marty]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10674354

so you bump it, but you have no opinion on the Police action in this case? Pursue for 200m, 200m later they crash and both die?

In the split second that you arrived at the scene, saw the offenders, they jump in the car and take off - what would you have done?

and remember, shining laser at cars doing 100km/h on the motorway is extremely dangerous and could easily result in a fatal crash.

[Berries]

Yesterdays paper - http://www.odt.co.nz/your-town/mosgiel/126899/police-forced-abandon-mosgiel-pursuit

Most of the ones that get called off don't even get reported on, but not much happens around here.

[davereid]

...and remember, shining laser at cars doing 100km/h on the motorway is extremely dangerous and could easily result in a fatal crash.


This is not a good argument to retain police chases.

1 in 4 pursuits ends in injury. It would be 1 in 10,000 shining laser at cars that ends in an injury. In fact less than that, as I don't think it has ever happened.

[Genestho]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10674354

so you bump it, but you have no opinion on the Police action in this case? Pursue for 200m, 200m later they crash and both die?

In the split second that you arrived at the scene, saw the offenders, they jump in the car and take off - what would you have done?

and remember, shining laser at cars doing 100km/h on the motorway is extremely dangerous and could easily result in a fatal crash.

Looks like the young man's been charged with manslaughter...
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/7969466/manslaughter-charges-laid-victims-named-in-auckland-crash/

[candor]

Jaycherree Penelope Makakea and Joseph Jack Tawhai, both 20 .................................................. ..............................join high youth toll, sad


It is weird behaviour this laser thing but it's not yet established if the suspects were the ones doing it.
Personally I see a few issues with this chase - but the only obvious thing is that Collins pep talks asking offenders not to flee is not working very well yet. Maybe more soundbytes or a tv ad campaign with Collins holding up a stop sign will do it. It works so good with everything else.

Witnesses on tv news say the police spin is BS - it did not happen as per spin. Watch this space.

[98tls]

Jaycherree Penelope Makakea and Joseph Jack Tawhai, both 20 .................................................. ..............................join high youth toll, sad




Witnesses on tv news say the police spin is BS - it did not happen as per spin. Watch this space.

Cheers,i had no idea what the fuck he was saying,just seemed real excited about being on TV,whats it matter anyway,you do a runner theres a chance you will fuck up as we see once again,how theres any blame on the cops side is beyond me.Its so simple really.

[candor]

Luckily kids in my area don't need to worry about police chases but I have rellys in South Aucks - in Church St where it happened too, their kids would need to be kept on a short lead I imagine (or well back from the road side of footpaths). These walking school buses are a bad idea in low decile areas, as a routine chase could take out many kids at a time. Its so predictable - 1 dead, 2 dead, 2 dead - the big one is yet to come.

[98tls]

I am waiting for there spin on the stadium in Invercargill collapsing,no doubt there they were chasing some runner and bugger me:eek5:the stadium collapses:gob:Bastards.

[Littleman]

Surprise.

I was waiting for them to announce that Sally Smith and David Johnson (both accountants of Sandringham) had died in the crash.

Oh well, can never pre judge I guess.

[candor]

Updates in debate

http://tvnz.co.nz/breakfast-news/call-inquiry-into-police-chases-6-39-video-3791499 A 6 minute interview i did with paul henry - we're seeking a Royal Comm to road safety program not just pursuits as it was implied...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4162705/NZ-among-worlds-worst-for-road-fatalities Minister recognises road safety approach broken in damage control mode.

Bloggers opine
http://tumeke.blogspot.com/2010/09/revenue-gathering-police-chase-policies.html Judith Collins is crusher or hugger asks Left?
http://blairformayor.blogspot.com/ See post titled petrol heads - re youth chases

Herald series today (recommend - good job)

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/social-issues/news/article.cfm?c_id=87&objectid=10675992 Judge Goddard pressures for uptake of IPCA recommendations

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/social-issues/news/article.cfm?c_id=87&objectid=10676002 Talk with International expert putting pressure on Police Commissioner

[scumdog]

Bump following deaths of 2 more innocent captive passengers in Onehunga - teens reportedly...

The perk of kicking around with a retard I guess...

[candor]

I will not ride with a drunk or drugged or anti police driver. Case for drafting a new safe teen driver contract? You have no vote in a drivers action. What if your kid is out and about and ends in an idiots car they mistook for a non idiot. What do you do if the driver does a runner - headlock? Seriously what? It can happen to anyone - wives with crap hubbys who drive dangerously as a mind-game, a lawyer mate said he is whiteknucked whenever in a fellow lawyers car so avoids it now but the first time didn't know it'd be that way... The memorial page for one Onehunga victim shows she was an asset to the community and a great loss to it - hundreds of people are devastated. Here are her vitals, about to turn 21 and to start a new job after losing their baby - http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10676103

[marty]

Updates in debate

http://tvnz.co.nz/breakfast-news/call-inquiry-into-police-chases-6-39-video-3791499 A 6 minute interview i did with paul henry - we're seeking a Royal Comm to road safety program not just pursuits as it was implied...


that's 2 mins of my life i'm never going to get back.

[red mermaid]

Playing with stats in the Paul Henry interview and the increase in the number of pursuits in the last 6 years.

6 years ago Police did not have a reliable method of recording the number of pursuits. Now that they do every pursuit is now logged and recorded, whereas before a huge number were not.



Updates in debate

http://tvnz.co.nz/breakfast-news/call-inquiry-into-police-chases-6-39-video-3791499 A 6 minute interview i did with paul henry - we're seeking a Royal Comm to road safety program not just pursuits as it was implied...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4162705/NZ-among-worlds-worst-for-road-fatalities Minister recognises road safety approach broken in damage control mode.

Bloggers opine
http://tumeke.blogspot.com/2010/09/revenue-gathering-police-chase-policies.html Judith Collins is crusher or hugger asks Left?
http://blairformayor.blogspot.com/ See post titled petrol heads - re youth chases

Herald series today (recommend - good job)

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/social-issues/news/article.cfm?c_id=87&objectid=10675992 Judge Goddard pressures for uptake of IPCA recommendations

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/social-issues/news/article.cfm?c_id=87&objectid=10676002 Talk with International expert putting pressure on Police Commissioner

[candor]

Only insane economists like Tony Bliss would massively up road police funding to 300 million in a short period which has tripled crash costs to ACC to 700 mill - to return only 100mill in revenue. Lose - lose - lose. Whatever hair splitting gets done over stats its a runaway failure; both the road safety program and the chase side effect of it.

Admit failure of the genius bosses - move forward with solutions - why not?
From countries with a few clues - instant ban on traffic offence chases behind most of this trauma (a third to innocent parties) a la Qsld, smash that quota computer, gimme my sledgey... then... use INTELLIGENT alternatives to pursuit mania;

1. Heavy penalties aren't viable being proven in BOTH psychological and real world studies to up flight tendency and incidences so upping the harm - killer collins?
2. Rego and warrant checks and "howdy doody type stops" can be targeted instead at stationary not transit vehicles and their drivers". OK keep quotas and barricade off the 4 aves (letting grans pass) then deal tickets for suspensions etc... :shutup:
3. ANPR or GPS darts or in car videos can be used to later catch up with those who do a bunk - your car and driver unidentified then they get the penalty.
4. WA is using in vehicle immobilisers to halt wannabe car thieves in their tracks
5. For serious violent offenders roads can be closed off – there should be none of this shameful pursuing of youths for 200 km over a stolen hunk of metal which risks 100's of lives. Allow ramming again to wind up necessary chases fast.

[munster]

there should be none of this shameful pursuing of youths for 200 km over a stolen hunk of metal which risks 100's of lives

Don't agree with this. Some of us work bloody long & hard to purchase that hunk of metal. Definitely not shameful in the least pursuing car thieves.



Allow ramming again to wind up necessary chases fast.

Best thing you've said this entire thread.

[marty]

. Allow ramming again to wind up necessary chases fast.


I've deleted the rest of it to save bandwidth, but this comment is fucking ridiculous (as are many other above it). Don't even think about suggesting it unless it's on the Auckland motorway with no ditches/powerpoles/opposing traffic, as you'd be the first to call for manslaughter charges if a cop rammed a suspect (for whatever offence - from speeding to murder suspect), and that car spun out and killed an innocent. The PIT manouver is dangerous given perfect conditions and is best used on high c of g vehicles travelling at high speed (read - most SUV's in the USA). I have been both passenger (suspect) and driver (law enforcment) during a PIT - it is NOT for the faint hearted at 100mph.

You are WAY out of your depth.

[BoristheBiter]

You are WAY out of your depth.

Hasn't stopped candor from talking crap this far.

[scumdog]

5. For serious violent offenders roads can be closed off – there should be none of this shameful pursuing of youths for 200 km over a stolen hunk of metal which risks 100's of lives. Allow ramming again to wind up necessary chases fast.

Ah, how about the effwit stopping before doing the 200km?

And closing roads off? - where are all the cops going to appear from to do that? - it's not like NZ has only freeways with a limited amount of off-ramps.

And one time they blocked the road completelyy the cretin who was driving the car that wouldn't stop crashed into the very visible road-block (a fire engine from memory) and killed all involved.

So the bleeding heart Pollyannas of the world now won't let the road be blocked completely "Must leave an escape route" WTF?? Why bother 'blocking' the road in that case? (Except maybe to force numbnuts driver to drive over roadspikes).

Ramming? somebody else has already explained the risks in doing that.

I think you should be get familiar with the constraints already in place re pursuits.:yes:

[candor]

Okay.. was just throwing out ideas based on foreign approaches. Wasn't aware of issues with ramming here :facepalm: and thought it used to be used. Was that in NZ that someone hit a fire engine!!!! In a built up area or on highway? :gob: As for the current useless policy I am aware of it, and it's name that deliberately makes it hard to find (a closely related policy of one Oz state is secret).
I think it is Howard Broad who should be getting grilled over exactly why he objects so strenuously to having a Police chase policy that as per IPCA recommendations
1) places public safety first
2) disallows chases based only on suspicion ie because they ran you chase.
Neither of these features, recommended for change after a good study by Justice Goddard last year, are characteristic of what is today considered best practice. I'd like an explanation why Howard thinks I or my family should be jeopardised because some twerp ran over usually nothing or nothing much - maybe a joint in his pocket. Not nice.
Why does Howie think Police are not accountable to it's advisors for doing things the recognised best way when they expect us to abide by law.
How much resourcing would it take to provide techy alternatives to kneejerk chases?
Any idea of dollar values - and isn't ANPR being tested somewhere I recall Dave Cliff saying.

[scumdog]

Was that in NZ that someone hit a fire engine!!!! In a built up area or on highway? :gob: .

It was in NZ and on the open road with TONS of visibility, 'somewhere' in the North Island..

[marty]

Okay.. was just throwing out ideas based on foreign approaches. Wasn't aware of issues with ramming here :facepalm: and thought it used to be used. Was that in NZ that someone hit a fire engine!!!! In a built up area or on highway? :gob: As for the current useless policy I am aware of it, and it's name that deliberately makes it hard to find (a closely related policy of one Oz state is secret).
I think it is Howard Broad who should be getting grilled over exactly why he objects so strenuously to having a Police chase policy that as per IPCA recommendations
1) places public safety first
2) disallows chases based only on suspicion ie because they ran you chase.
Neither of these features, recommended for change after a good study by Justice Goddard last year, are characteristic of what is today considered best practice. I'd like an explanation why Howard thinks I or my family should be jeopardised because some twerp ran over usually nothing or nothing much - maybe a joint in his pocket. Not nice.
Why does Howie think Police are not accountable to it's advisors for doing things the recognised best way when they expect us to abide by law.
How much resourcing would it take to provide techy alternatives to kneejerk chases?
Any idea of dollar values - and isn't ANPR being tested somewhere I recall Dave Cliff saying.

So let's get this straight. You are holding yourself out to question the current state, and be a spokesman for it, yet you actually have no credible options to present? You can't even tell us what the 'recognised best way' is, apart from 1 state in USA (hardly a majority - and they are looking at expanding the reasons for pursuit anyway) and some trials in Victoria? None of your comments yet have even hinted at dealing with this at the CORE issue. I don't even think you know what it is.

[Berries]

.......and isn't ANPR being tested somewhere......
According to the ODT the Dunedin CBD cameras will have ANPR capability when they get commissioned soon. Be interesting to see whether they use it or not.

[Wannabiker]

The fire engine case was about 1988. The chase ended just south of Turangi. Long distance high speed chase (in a Mk3 Cortina if my memory serves me correctly). Driven into the fire engine at high speed (which isnt much in a cortina)

The fire engine belonged to NZ Army and was a Waiouru based appliance. It was my first ever job as a mechanic in the Army to complete the repairs when it came back from the panelbeaters.

Followed closely after the release of the movie "cannonball run"....

[candor]

What's not credible about 2/3 and 4 in post 195

The core problem is that policy isn't best for road safety. What do you say is the "recognised best way" that you seem to be saying I've not mentioned - or Prof Geoff Alpert or the IPCA (given I agree with and only really restate their views). And what do you see as the core issue? You're losing me. If it is that people run go on then put forth a policy that would stop that cos I'm not aware of one. Something you put in the water? As Alpert says thats not really controllable - what is is minimising risks from that point on. Dream a dream - what's the ideal set up for cops.

[BoristheBiter]

What's not credible about 2/3 and 4 in post 195

The core problem is that policy isn't best for road safety. What do you say is the "recognised best way" that you seem to be saying I've not mentioned - or Prof Geoff Alpert or the IPCA (given I agree with and only really restate their views). And what do you see as the core issue? You're losing me. If it is that people run go on then put forth a policy that would stop that cos I'm not aware of one. Something you put in the water? As Alpert says thats not really controllable - what is is minimising risks from that point on. Dream a dream - what's the ideal set up for cops.

The core issue is people do not stop then run from the police and crash into others, if this is not so then what have you been ranting about or have you allready forgotten?


It all comes down to the circumstance surrounding the reson to pull the vehicle over.

Just think about it, if the cops can't chase who will stop?

[scumdog]

Just think about it, if the cops can't chase who will stop?

Even the bozos and drongos will figure out they're home free if the cops can't chase them, hell, as it is the nongs have grabbed hold of this urban myth that "if you go over 150kph the cops have got to call off the chase" as is it were gospel.

And we have to share the roads with people of that mentality, sad, bloody sad...

[marty]

IMHO the core issue is the lack of respect of oneself, of others, and of doing the right thing. No amount of legislation is going to change that. In the absence of a stratopheric change in attitude, the only thing that will stop these clowns running and killing is an absolute fear of consequence. Problem is, the consequence at the moment seems to be death, so I'm not sure what else they would be scared of. I don't have the answer, but it probably lies around:

Obtaining a licence is an absolute privelege, not a right.
Professional driver instruction including high speed, skid training, evasive action, close-contact, motorway, rural and city driving.
Minimum car standards.
Horsepower limits based on age.
Compulsory insurance
Zero-alcohol limits for under 25.
Long-term loss of licence upon conviction, with re-sit of all stages before relicencing.
Impound/confiscation of vehicle regardless of owner/driver relationship.
Professionally trained Police pursuit drivers, with high-powered performance-based vehicles.

I could go on, but my sphere of concern has shifted, so I'll leave it at that.

[candor]

Yep agreed there's a lot of bad context here that's not aggravating matters over in the less feral countries... but despite that this debate long past went circular I have to again answer Boris and Scumdogs fears of complete civil disobedience breaking loose.

The facts proven elsewhere is that more restrictive policy doesn't add more morons or dickheads - god only blessed us with a finite number.
Plenty of tickets still get issued to the good people who will be more careful for a while as a result, and those who'd take no notice anyway just are no longer chased in to being much more than the minor risk that they previously posed.
It all comes down to what is the object of the game
- the choice seems to be
a) CAPTURE ALL NONGS NOW - do your darnedest to catch every mark and end up with far more crashes than adopting a Toaist "go with the flow" stance would have
b) CAPTURE MOST MARKS but apply a bit of common sense and pick the battles with policy discouraging trivial matter pursuits, but enabling later imposition of sanctions on most NONGS- well covered as do-able IN STEP BY STEP INSTRUCTIONS from Alpert in the Herald link, so that road safety has primacy every minute of the shift. See bit about "Rebuttal of presumption"

Contrary to popular belief society doesn't crumble when Police let that portion of small fry who're non compliant go. Not doing so has aided demises of 10 innocent people out of the 16 to perish because nongs zoomed off in the last 12mths. So no its not the culprit who wears it here and getting just desserts - fate or perhaps steering to just save themselves has them protected.
The Heralds feature went through each case, but it was a table and not included in the web based article just print version.

When 4% of the toll in a high toll land is chase related (double the other top rating chase death countries) something's up, and that needs a rethink, unless we're to be the worlds road safety freakshow ongoing - a cautionary tale in some future safety science textbooks. Tho it hardly sems feasible, it'll only get worse if NZ refuses to adopt good policy, as more crowded roads are predicted over the next decade and a youth explosion.

[BoristheBiter]

Yep agreed there's a lot of bad context here that's not aggravating matters over in the less feral countries... but despite that this debate long past went circular I have to again answer Boris and Scumdogs fears of complete civil disobedience breaking loose.

The facts proven elsewhere is that more restrictive policy doesn't add more morons or dickheads - god only blessed us with a finite number.
Plenty of tickets still get issued to the good people who will be more careful for a while as a result, and those who'd take no notice anyway just are no longer chased in to being much more than the minor risk that they previously posed.
It all comes down to what is the object of the game
- the choice seems to be
a) CAPTURE ALL NONGS NOW - do your darnedest to catch every mark and end up with far more crashes than adopting a Toaist "go with the flow" stance would have
b) CAPTURE MOST MARKS but apply a bit of common sense and pick the battles with policy discouraging trivial matter pursuits, but enabling later imposition of sanctions on most NONGS- well covered as do-able IN STEP BY STEP INSTRUCTIONS from Alpert in the Herald link, so that road safety has primacy every minute of the shift. See bit about "Rebuttal of presumption"

Contrary to popular belief society doesn't crumble when Police let that portion of small fry who're non compliant go. Not doing so has aided demises of 10 innocent people out of the 16 to perish because nongs zoomed off in the last 12mths. So no its not the culprit who wears it here and getting just desserts - fate or perhaps steering to just save themselves has them protected.
The Heralds feature went through each case, but it was a table and not included in the web based article just print version.

When 4% of the toll in a high toll land is chase related (double the other top rating chase death countries) something's up, and that needs a rethink, unless we're to be the worlds road safety freakshow ongoing - a cautionary tale in some future safety science textbooks. Tho it hardly sems feasible, it'll only get worse if NZ refuses to adopt good policy, as more crowded roads are predicted over the next decade and a youth explosion.

What about this?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/4169437/Teens-in-drivers-seat-both-killed

Where does this fit into your graphs and charts?
Why is it that people like you can't see what the real issue's are? or feel the need to blame someone/thing else for the problem.
There are stupid drivers/riders on the road. everyone knows now bad it has become, and still you sit there behind your computer and blame the police and there policy's for the reason.

And if we do become "road safety freakshow" then we can sell the show back to the US and make them watch our shit drivers.

[Forest]

Contrary to popular belief society doesn't crumble when Police let that portion of small fry who're non compliant go.

Is that so?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory

[candor]

What about this?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/4169437/Teens-in-drivers-seat-both-killed

There are stupid drivers/riders on the road. And if we do become "road safety freakshow" then we can sell the show back to the US and make them watch our shit drivers.

Lemmings was my thought on that link. Well I suppose u-tube commercialisation might be an upside. Blood sells.
Re "broken windows" theory it doesn't apply well here as regards minor traffic infringements and rampant chases over them, the outcomes of treating a wee speed creep as a broken window show that. But in NY broken windows Policing is applied to road safety (seen as violent offending and a homicide feeder) but differently.... more proactively and smartly.

Those who do not deserve to drive are decisively separated from the activity. With high as drink drive penalties where injury occurs (lock up throw away key) and high certainty of car confiscation for this (cars are displayed in large fields as a constant advertisment especially Mercs and BMWs), and extreme care taken to prevent people circumventing bans eg unable to rego new cars etc - it has among the lowest drink drive deaths per capita in the world with a 0.08 limit like we have showing limits are moot.

As 45% of current crash ending chases here are of suspected impaired drivers a similar broken windows approach to impaired driving could be a major chase reducer. It would begin with a register like for sex offenders and equally close monitoring of people under disqualification to ensure compliance by all involved depts. A bit of forward thinking, a stitch in time etc.

Lets be clear- I'm not blaming Police - there is no place for blame as it just a hang up and thwarts discussion of prevention. The Q as I see it is what can Police do via approach to better minimise the carnage caused by F-wit fugitives. Cops are clearly in an inhospitable environment to being able to Police constructively, but as that won't change in a hurry isn't that all the more reason to get in place the best possible chase policy as triage?
I say just take the experts advice (Alpert, IPCA) and try being more sophisticated for a month. Then knock rough edges into shape if there are any greater problems than exist with the present approach. The current use of urgent driving is disproportionate a response to the threat most runners pose. Police admitted to the Herald 75% are commenced over non criminal matters. So its traffic stuff triggering responses that offer no safety gain, in too many cases. Redundant action - off purpose. When issuing tickets is more dangerous than not doing, why insist on it stat?

[scumdog]

And if it came policy to 'we won't chase anyone' and as a result there was more high speed hooliganism by lame-brains with half a licence who increasingly crash and kill their own passengers or kill other people who will wear the blame??:blink:

[candor]

It hasn't happened anywhere else that policy was tightened. Not talking about a no chase policy regardless - just a much much more restrictive one. IMO it can't be the sole change though, gotta look at a lot of surrounding policy / legislation that is upping running today etc. Many good points on this thread and odds are and I hope the bureaucrats have printed out & are poreing over it looking for ways to advance career. Checks time.

[marty]

I'm sure the bigwigs @ LTSA and the Ministry of Transport have KB as their homepage.

[Berries]

According to the ODT the Dunedin CBD cameras will have ANPR capability when they get commissioned soon. Be interesting to see whether they use it or not.

Just in case anyone wants to ride through the centre of Dunedin while their rego is on hold - http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/129405/octagon-cameras-capture-assaults

Top tip - keep it on the back wheel.