All charges dropped [Archive] - Kiwi Biker forums

Jack Miller

3rd June 2011, 14:31

I fell foul of one of New Zealand's patched-up gangs a few months ago:shit:.
Like all gangs the Police has its share of good:Police: and bad:buggerd: members and a couple of the bad ones ticketed me at the end of a passing lane then demanded money with menace:angry:.

All gangs have their own ethics and this was in contravention of the highway robbery gang's policy that "vehicles should not be targeted within 250 metres of the finish of any passing lane":nono:[1]

Furthermore, they deployed their RADAR in a devious way that did not give the full 3 second reading required for accuracy:nono:[2].

Finally, demonstrating the widely criticised arrogant refusal of front line members to accept any view contrary to theirs, be it from Gang HQ (which they call Bullshit Castle) or any other source:nono:,
and following the rising trend, especially amongst highway members, to ignore individual circumstances:nono:[3]
the members refused to listen to my explanation that if I had sped, which I doubted, it was because the vehicle I was passing had accelerated dangerously along with those closely following it:argue:
meaning I had not breached the Road User Rule:innocent:[4]

With help from the District Court:niceone: I was able to make the gang see reason and all charges have been dropped.:woohoo:

I considered asking the Court for a non-molestation order against the Police but decided against it. As a five year resident of Wanganui I have become used to encountering gang members in their variety of uniforms, patches, badges and other insignia. This is the first occasion on which insignia has been used menacingly, and ultimately it proved harmless.

[1] http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/2007/speed-enforcement-guide/index.html

[2] Police RADAR Operator’s Manual

[3] "My Individual Circumstances Were Taken Into Account... a significant decline ... most notable among those who have had roadside contact." Gravitas 2009-10 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

[4] “A person is not in breach of this rule if the act took place in response to a situation on the road not of the person’s own making ...” S1.8.1 Land Transport Road User Rule 2004

I have no affiliation to any gang.

Jdogg

3rd June 2011, 14:45

Are the guidelines that you supplied a link to, still current since the Commencement Date is: 27/02/2007 and Expiry Date is: 27/02/2009 . Have they not been superseeded?

White trash

3rd June 2011, 14:53

Awesome, just what KB needs, another cop bashing poster.

You should have just kicked those original "gang members" in the nuts when they originally pulled you over, that's what I woulda done. And if the gave me any lip, one woulda copped a glock just to show the other one I meant business.:blink:

thepom

3rd June 2011, 14:54

Good on ya mate,I just served and I was doing 44 in a thirty and the ploice were hiding behind a road sign and a trailer.....

Jack Miller

3rd June 2011, 15:31

Are the guidelines that you supplied a link to, still current since the Commencement Date is: 27/02/2007 and Expiry Date is: 27/02/2009 . Have they not been superseeded?

I sympathise with your question. The Police/LTSA have demonstrated a disingenuous sinking-lid enforcement policy by publicly positing something palatable (eg; we'll only target the top 15%); sinking below it (i.e.; targeting everyone); then subsequently changing the policy (without publicity) in a constant ratcheting down of the reasonableness and ratcheting up of the revenue. However, in this case, according to a letter from Paula Rose[1] dated 17 Dec, 2010 it is still policy. Her reasoning is:

"This policy was introduced to reduce the risk of vehicle crashes and the consequences of those crashes. The merging of vehicles at the ends of passing lanes is potentially hazardous. It requires vehicles to travel at similar speeds and merge "like a zip." Prior to this policy being introduced, there were reports of drivers in the process of merging suddenly braking and taking evasive action when they saw a speed camera vehicle ahead. These driver reactions led to higher risks of vehicle crashes than vehicle speeds alone. To minimise that increased crash risk, the policy was introduced to take the speed camera vehicles away from the immediate vision of drivers in the process of merging."

Note that the Police make no admission here that exceeding the speed limit is OK at the end of passing lanes. However, if the vehicle you are passing is at the head of a queue of vehicles who are not trying to pass it and has been travelling at less than the speed limit, and if the entire queue speeds up leaving you no space to re-merge, and if the passing lane end is approaching quickly you have no choice but to exceed the speed limit to remain safe. In this case section 1.8 provides a defense.

[1] National Manager - Roading Policy
NZ Police

Jack Miller

3rd June 2011, 15:37

Good on ya mate,I just served and I was doing 44 in a thirty and the ploice were hiding behind a road sign and a trailer.....

Assuming you are law-abiding and were not of course actually speeding, and assuming they spent less than three seconds taking your reading (so you wouldn't spot them and slow down) I recommend you fight the ticket. According to information I obtained from http://www.aussiespeedingfines.com an accurate reading is impossible in less than three full seconds.

ps I have no affiliation to aussiespeedingfines other than as a satisfied customer.

Jack Miller

3rd June 2011, 15:58

Awesome, just what KB needs, another cop bashing poster.

I prefer not to see myself as a "Cop Basher" merely someone who gives credit where credit is due. I applaud the Police's recent successful major drug bust and have considerable respect for those who walk into substance-fueled, violent altercations and restore the peace. As a rule, I even go out of my way to help them. For example, when two policemen appeared in hot pursuit of a man running towards me up Willis St I tackled the man and held him until the police arrived. I also sacrificed my time and income[1] to attend Court as a witness for them. Mind you, the result was disappointing. On that occasion the Court found that the custody the man had been escaping from was unlawful and immediately discharged him to innocent freedom. It appears that the Police had had no right to detain him and I had unwittingly aided and abetted an unlawful activity. C'est la vie

Notwithstanding that my personal experiences don't support it I believe that, like most groups of human beings the Police is mainly peopled with well-intentioned members trying to improve the world. Just as there is good and bad in each of us, so too is there good and bad in every human group, mainly good. If there is a sub-group within the Police where this balance is different I suspect it is in traffic enforcement. This view appears to be born out in in the Gravitas survey that singled them out for special mention.

[1]I am self employed and Witness Fees are a pittance.

rastuscat

3rd June 2011, 18:07

...If there is a sub-group within the Police where this balance is different I suspect it is in traffic enforcement. This view appears to be born out in in the Gravitas survey that singled them out for special mention...

Hi Jack.

Whoops, must remember never to say that when boarding a plane.

Anyways, I'm in that sub group. The people I work with are an interesting bunch, but as you mentioned, we are a cross section of society.

What makes the difference is the work we are expected to do. I get to deal with a far greater cross section of society than your average popo. The "Real Police" spend 90% of their time dealing with the lower 10% of society. Road policing staff get to deal with a full range of the public.

That's because most people won't assault anyone, steal anything, or get drunk and make a total fool of themselves. Obviously lots do, but by far the majority of the population are law abiding citizens.

When it comes to road laws, however, the reverse is almost certainly true. Know it or not, most folk drive to an average standard, doing things subconsciously that they bag other people for doing. E.G. Lots of us bag folk for driving while using a cellphone, but sneak a call when we absolutely have to.

Lots of us drive at speeds over the limit. Note that I didn't say speed too fast for the conditions, or inappropriate speed, just that which is over the publicly published limit. I recognise the difference. It's law over the limit wich is easy to educate and enforce, so it's speed over the limit that gets enforced. Inappropriate speed is very subjective, and it's an objective level that is needed.

Anyway, as a result, the traffic popos get to deal with a far broader range of individuals. For this reason, the public finds it easy to climb on the backs of the road popos, and the adverse public comment is welcomed by all who feel self justification after having fallen foul of traffic law themself. Had a ticket? Doesn't it feel so much better to know that lots of people get tickets, and it's all about revenue collecting. It makes folk feel good to know that it's the popos fault, not theirs.

The same old advice gets out there though. If you don't want a ticket at the end of a passing lane for exceeding the speed limit, plan your overtaking in a way that means you don't have to exceed the speed limit at the end of a passing lane. Spooky really, to learn that the people who get the tickets are the people who have broken the rules.

So now, have your clearly educated and well written say in response. Sigh.

scumdog

3rd June 2011, 18:17

Matt_TG

3rd June 2011, 21:58

Well, were you speeding???

How would you [1] feel if :blink: someone managed to kill :shit: [2] one of your family members :shutup: [3] due to any reason that involved :sick: breaking the law (not neccessarily excessive speed) [4] then although they are not saying that they are angels :innocent: but bragged [5] on an internet forum [6] :facepalm: [7]?

[1] Or anyone you are close to
[2] maim, injure, impale, root
[3] Or anyone you are close to
[4] I may have mis-spelt neccessarily
[5] Does anyone actually read the reference notes - it's not a fucking uni essay, it's a forum
[6] Hang on I covered this in [5]
[7] Aren't smiley's a PITA when interspersed with text

Jack Miller

3rd June 2011, 23:17

Well, were you speeding???
How would you [1] feel if :blink: someone managed to kill :shit: [2] one of your family members :shutup: [3] due to any reason that involved :sick: breaking the law (not neccessarily excessive speed) [4] then although they are not saying that they are angels :innocent: but bragged [5] on an internet forum [6] :facepalm: [7]?

[1] Or anyone you are close to
[2] maim, injure, impale, root
[3] Or anyone you are close to
[4] I may have mis-spelt neccessarily
[5] Does anyone actually read the reference notes - it's not a fucking uni essay, it's a forum
[6] Hang on I covered this in [5]
[7] Aren't smiley's a PITA when interspersed with text

If you can't fault the argument attack the presentation eh? You missed the point. I did not break the law. Once cool headed Police members reviewed the situation they overturned the original hot-head's decision and withdrew the charges.

Berries

3rd June 2011, 23:36

The Police/LTSA have...........

Just for info, seeing as you appear to want to be legally correct and all that, the LTSA ceased to exist nearly five years ago. Smilies on the other hand.........:shit:

Jack Miller

3rd June 2011, 23:43

...adverse public comment is welcomed by all who feel self justification after having fallen foul of traffic law themself. ...

I didn't fall foul of traffic law. I fell foul of a biased enforcer who misread the situation, jumped to the wrong conclusion, and would not listen to an explanation on the spot. Eventually his superiors were made to understand and the charges were quite rightly withdrawn.

Jack Miller

3rd June 2011, 23:52

Just for info, seeing as you appear to want to be legally correct and all that, the LTSA ceased to exist nearly five years ago. Smilies on the other hand.........:shit:

Except that it was more than 5 years ago that the disingenuous sinking-lid policy I was referring to started. Perhaps I should have said "Police/LTSA (now NZTA)"

rastuscat

4th June 2011, 00:08

Jack Miller

4th June 2011, 01:08

... It's law over the limit wich is easy to educate and enforce, so it's speed over the limit that gets enforced....

and this is a great pity because speed limit enforcement has had no effect on the road toll. All it achieved is poisoning those you yourself define as "law abiding" against the Police. By the Police's own statistics exceeding the speed limit is just one of many factors contributing to accidents and it is absolutely not a factor in nineteen out of every twenty accidents.

Unconstrained by the need to focus on that which will generate tickets the Automobile Association's research and conclusions are much purer. Their paper "Saving Ourselves" of September 2009 is highly instructive and free - just ask for a copy.

It reports that the average open road speed declined steadily from 102 to 97 over 8 years and the speed of the top 15% dropped from 112 to 103. However, this steady rate of decline was utterly uninfluenced by the rate of ticketing, which fluctuated wildly between 550k and 850k per year. If speeding was a disease and ticketing a proposed drug Pharmac would not fund it. In fact the complete lack of any statistical correlation is such that the drug company would reject it after the first round of trials. Pharmac would never even get to see it. The steady rate of speed-decline is more likely due to our population aging - we get more sensible and our reactions slow down as we get older.

"There is also no correlation between the decline in open road speed and a decline in injuries (because injuries increased.)" If the road toll is down it is because newer cars protect people better and medical advances have improved the efficacy of ambulatory services. People are now injured when previously they would have been killed.

So enforcing the speed limit has had no effect on speeds, which have reduced for other reasons. Reducing speed has not reduced the number of accidents. The road toll is trending down because of vehicle safety and ambulatory improvements - not speed limit enforcement.

By any rational measure issuing speeding tickets is a waste of your time and our taxes.

Jack Miller

4th June 2011, 01:29

Back to the original point.
Did you exceed 100 km/h?
Go on, be honest. It would be interesting to know if you are saying you were innocent, or if you are just self righteous about how you got caught.
Most of the arguing on KB is about how someone got caught.

Oh my dear Rastuscat how you disappoint me. I'd hoped you might have been a traffic law enforcer who relied on a comprehensive understanding of the law rather than NZTA slogans and other propaganda. Perhaps such enforcers don't exist. How very sad. Please read the Road User Rule. You will find a myriad of circumstances in which exceeding the posted speed limit is not illegal.

Absolutely I was innocent. I did not break any law. Presumably this was recognised by your colleagues who withdrew the charges.

For the record I was reading the road not my speedo at the time but am certain I was not traveling at 127 as was originally alleged but subsequently withdrawn.

bsasuper

4th June 2011, 07:43

Very good reading.No doubt the popo will claim this long weekends 4kph over limit a huge success, even though the crap weather will keep a lot of people at home.

marty

4th June 2011, 09:13

awayatc

4th June 2011, 09:23

. Spooky really, to learn that the people who get the tickets are the people who have broken the rules.

You must be the only person on this planet who actualy believes that drivel......

The popo never get it wrong?
The popo don't hire arseholes?
The popo always get the right guy?
Objective popo can't make mistakes?
Objective popo have a cunt of a day and react accordingly........?

You are a funny guy...............:facepalm:

marty

4th June 2011, 09:27

and this is a great pity because speed limit enforcement has had no effect on the road toll. All it achieved is poisoning those you yourself define as "law abiding" against the Police. By the Police's own statistics exceeding the speed limit is just one of many factors contributing to accidents and it is absolutely not a factor in nineteen out of every twenty accidents.

Unconstrained by the need to focus on that which will generate tickets the Automobile Association's research and conclusions are much purer. Their paper "Saving Ourselves" of September 2009 is highly instructive and free - just ask for a copy.

It reports that the average open road speed declined steadily from 102 to 97 over 8 years and the speed of the top 15% dropped from 112 to 103. However, this steady rate of decline was utterly uninfluenced by the rate of ticketing, which fluctuated wildly between 550k and 850k per year. If speeding was a disease and ticketing a proposed drug Pharmac would not fund it. In fact the complete lack of any statistical correlation is such that the drug company would reject it after the first round of trials. Pharmac would never even get to see it. The steady rate of speed-decline is more likely due to our population aging - we get more sensible and our reactions slow down as we get older.

"There is also no correlation between the decline in open road speed and a decline in injuries (because injuries increased.)" If the road toll is down it is because newer cars protect people better and medical advances have improved the efficacy of ambulatory services. People are now injured when previously they would have been killed.

So enforcing the speed limit has had no effect on speeds, which have reduced for other reasons. Reducing speed has not reduced the number of accidents. The road toll is trending down because of vehicle safety and ambulatory improvements - not speed limit enforcement.

By any rational measure issuing speeding tickets is a waste of your time and our taxes.

however, upon the introduction of the Higway Patrol in the Waikato in 2000, instead of attending multiple deaths every week, and ambulance and fire being called out daily for serious, mostly speed related crashes, the amount of emergency work required by the 3 ERTs dropped dramatically. in the early days of HP, and prior to it, from a daily capture rate of 5 to 10 people over 160km/h, the capture rate not only dropped dramatically, it became unusual to get such high speeds, and captures in the 140-150k range became the norm instead.

Indoo

4th June 2011, 10:25

Back to the original point.

Did you exceed 100 km/h?

It doesn't really matter if he did or not, the 'safeguards' adopted are there for a good reason, such as the 5-10kmh discretion and enforcement in relation to passing lanes. The arbitary blind application of the very letter of the law is something that the public do have protection against.

awayatc

4th June 2011, 10:51

otherwise what would be the point of having police officers?

may as well have technology only...
(camera's, computers and robots)

Toaster

4th June 2011, 12:57

By far one of the most interesting threads to read in quite some time.

Good summary of the intricacies of the laws to that particular situation.

In my view and sensible outcome too.

Jack Miller

4th June 2011, 17:18

rastuscat

4th June 2011, 18:54

Kickaha

4th June 2011, 18:58

So, how do we avert this?

Easy, just don't issue any tickets at all, problem solved

rastuscat

4th June 2011, 18:58

Now this is a challenge I must take seriously. While this anecdote does not appear to be supported by the National statistics it is a stone not to be left unturned. Can you point me in the direction of empirical data covering this situation? I would relish the opportunity to study it closely.

One study to support that claim is to sit in a smoko room with HP officers who have been doing the HP job since its inception.

They'll all tell you that they find it harder to get high speeds than it used to be.

Sorry, it probably doesn't meet the academic standard you want, but that's how the real world exists. You can't reference it, word count it, or Google it, but it's true.

rastuscat

4th June 2011, 19:00

Easy, just don't issue any tickets at all, problem solved

Interesting theory. Drive around all day and do nothing. Cool. I'll do that.

Kickaha

4th June 2011, 19:04

Interesting theory. Drive around all day and do nothing. Cool. I'll do that.

You're welcome, stop in and I'll shout you a doughnut

rastuscat

4th June 2011, 19:32

You're welcome, stop in and I'll shout you a doughnut

Mmmmmmmmmm, donuts ..............240005

marty

4th June 2011, 19:47

Now this is a challenge I must take seriously. While this anecdote does not appear to be supported by the National statistics it is a stone not to be left unturned. Can you point me in the direction of empirical data covering this situation? I would relish the opportunity to study it closely.

The data would be there but I have no intention of finding it. It was a personal observation on my behalf as a highway cop working in the killing fields of the north and south Waikato through the 90's and 2000's.

My record was 19 deaths due to crashes in 30 days. That was just when I was rostered on - there were others in that time.

chasio

4th June 2011, 20:10

however, upon the introduction of the Higway Patrol in the Waikato in 2000, instead of attending multiple deaths every week, and ambulance and fire being called out daily for serious, mostly speed related crashes, the amount of emergency work required by the 3 ERTs dropped dramatically. in the early days of HP, and prior to it, from a daily capture rate of 5 to 10 people over 160km/h, the capture rate not only dropped dramatically, it became unusual to get such high speeds, and captures in the 140-150k range became the norm instead.

Any chance the incidence of radar detector use went up over a corresponding period? Everyone I know who I'd consider a high speed road user (riding or driving at say 150 plus on anything more than an occasional basis) has a radar detector.

If most vehicles travelling at the higher end of the speed range were increasingly thus equipped, we might expect to see the rate at which they are caught falling.

Empirical data would be nice but opinion may be all we can get.

awayatc

4th June 2011, 20:14

Interesting theory. Drive around all day and do nothing. Cool. I'll do that.

Hope you don't see yourself as just a ticket issuing automaton.........

DrunkenMistake

4th June 2011, 20:39

English translation for the average KB'er.
[English in Red.]

I fell foul of one of New Zealand's patched-up gangs a few months ago:shit:.
Like all gangs the Police has its share of good:Police: and bad:buggerd: members and a couple of the bad ones ticketed me at the end of a passing lane then demanded money with menace:angry:.

All gangs have their own ethics and this was in contravention of the highway robbery gang's policy that "vehicles should not be targeted within 250 metres of the finish of any passing lane":nono:[1]

Furthermore, they deployed their RADAR in a devious way that did not give the full 3 second reading required for accuracy:nono:[2].

Finally, demonstrating the widely criticised arrogant refusal of front line members to accept any view contrary to theirs, be it from Gang HQ (which they call Bullshit Castle) or any other source:nono:,
and following the rising trend, especially amongst highway members, to ignore individual circumstances:nono:[3]
the members refused to listen to my explanation that if I had sped, which I doubted, it was because the vehicle I was passing had accelerated dangerously along with those closely following it:argue:
meaning I had not breached the Road User Rule:innocent:[4]

With help from the District Court:niceone: I was able to make the gang see reason and all charges have been dropped.:woohoo:

I considered asking the Court for a non-molestation order against the Police but decided against it. As a five year resident of Wanganui I have become used to encountering gang members in their variety of uniforms, patches, badges and other insignia. This is the first occasion on which insignia has been used menacingly, and ultimately it proved harmless.

[1] http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/2007/speed-enforcement-guide/index.html

[2] Police RADAR Operator’s Manual

[3] "My Individual Circumstances Were Taken Into Account... a significant decline ... most notable among those who have had roadside contact." Gravitas 2009-10 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

[4] “A person is not in breach of this rule if the act took place in response to a situation on the road not of the person’s own making ...” S1.8.1 Land Transport Road User Rule 2004

I have no affiliation to any gang.
Wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa
I got caught.

Your bridges were burned, and now it's your turn
To cry, cry me a river
Cry me a river-er
Cry me a river
Cry me a river-er, yea yea -Justn Timberlake - cry me a river.

marty

4th June 2011, 20:45

Any chance the incidence of radar detector use went up over a corresponding period? Everyone I know who I'd consider a high speed road user (riding or driving at say 150 plus on anything more than an occasional basis) has a radar detector.

If most vehicles travelling at the higher end of the speed range were increasingly thus equipped, we might expect to see the rate at which they are caught falling.

Empirical data would be nice but opinion may be all we can get.

probably. of interest in 13 years of tickets i cannot recall ever writing one to a sales rep.

but the advent of the stalker radar and its instant-on capability and accuracy sees many many radar detector-equipped cars being snapped anyway.

idiots that speed cause they think it's cool, and young dumb and full of cum still make up a very high percentage or speeding motorists. as do alcoholics, mums, grandmas and ski bunnies. these facts haven't changed.

i don't claim to know anything, but i do know what i know.

awayatc

4th June 2011, 20:46

Drunken mistake............

your IQ test came back negative did it?

DrunkenMistake

4th June 2011, 21:00

Drunken mistake............

your IQ test came back negative did it?

Nah, I figured I would crawl out from under my bridge just to Troll.

scumdog

4th June 2011, 21:33

Nah, I figured I would crawl out from under my bridge just to Troll.

To properly troll you need to be subtle - like me!:shutup:

DrunkenMistake

4th June 2011, 21:37

To properly troll you need to be subtle - like me!:shutup:

Yeah in hindsight it was pretty blunt..

Ill try again later?

Jack Miller

4th June 2011, 21:54

The data would be there but I have no intention of finding it.

I agree, if it proves a correlation between ticketing and speeding then someone, somewhere will be collating it for presentation it to the current NZ Land Transport Safety Strategy Review. As far as I am aware, no-one has yet presented anything that challenges the AA's research or it's findings. But I will certainly keep hunting for it.

pete376403

4th June 2011, 22:09

Accident stats rising in Waikato despite speeds dropping?

Does Leo Tooman know this? (that smoko room chatter says speeds are dropping)

http://www.infonews.co.nz/news.cfm?id=68349

Berries

4th June 2011, 23:34

Yeah in hindsight it was pretty blunt..

Ill try again later?
Please do. I had wine coming out the nostrils with that one.

Jack Miller

5th June 2011, 03:28

English translation for the average KB'er.
Wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa
I got caught.

Caught? doing what? Nothing illegal, the charges were dropped.

TimeOut

5th June 2011, 07:28

Furthermore, they deployed their RADAR in a devious way that did not give the full 3 second reading required for accuracy:nono:[2].

but the advent of the stalker radar and its instant-on capability and accuracy sees many many radar detector-equipped cars being snapped anyway.

So I'm assuming that when using instant-on there would be a 3 second delay from when the Stalker is turned on till the cop can lock the speed

Berries

5th June 2011, 07:29

Caught? doing what? Nothing illegal, the charges were dropped.
That's why I can't see the point of this thread.

You get a ticket you don't think you deserve. You take it to court and they agree with you and cancel the ticket. BFD. Isn't that what the courts are for ?

yod

5th June 2011, 08:21

That's why I can't see the point of this thread.

Mate, I can't find the point to 90% of the threads in here, but they're still in here. :lol:

marty

5th June 2011, 08:36

So I'm assuming that when using instant-on there would be a 3 second delay from when the Stalker is turned on till the cop can lock the speed

the 3-second rule only applies to donuts that have been dropped on the ground.

awayatc

5th June 2011, 08:56

That's why I can't see the point of this thread.

You get a ticket you don't think you deserve. You take it to court and they agree with you and cancel the ticket. BFD. Isn't that what the courts are for ?

well............
you been to court here?
to defend an undeserved ticket?

Good luck!

Great thread BTW

Eyegasm

8th June 2011, 08:19

I love threads like this...

Keep my mornings busy while I am supposed to be working.
I also like the fact that your taxes pay for me to sit here and browse KB!!

Thank you, from one Government Employee!!!

Continue
:corn:

Jack Miller

14th June 2011, 20:52

Jack Miller

14th June 2011, 20:59

however, upon the introduction of the Higway Patrol in the Waikato in 2000, instead of attending multiple deaths every week, and ambulance and fire being called out daily for serious, mostly speed related crashes, the amount of emergency work required by the 3 ERTs dropped dramatically. in the early days of HP, and prior to it, from a daily capture rate of 5 to 10 people over 160km/h, the capture rate not only dropped dramatically, it became unusual to get such high speeds, and captures in the 140-150k range became the norm instead.

OK, this challenged me so I did the research. It turns out that the raw data used by the AA was actually the Police's own data, including the Waikato. The top end speed reduction from 150-160 to 140-150 was part of the general trend. It occurred steadily and was not influenced by the rate of ticketing. Obviously it is appealing for those involved to believe that they have made a difference but the facts do not support it. The AA has issued a serious challenge to the current crime/enforcement regime in it's submission to the Road Safety Strategy Review. Do you not think Paula Rose would be making much of the Waikato situation if it genuinely challenged the AA's conclusions. The facts are it doesn't.

Jack Miller

14th June 2011, 21:00

Very good reading.No doubt the popo will claim this long weekends 4kph over limit a huge success, even though the crap weather will keep a lot of people at home.

One day Mainstream TV will actually correlate a long weekend road toll with fuel sales for the same weekend. It would be childishly easy and would result in some actually meaningful news. However it will also confirm the AA's research that speed-limit enforcement has had no effect on the road toll so I doubt we'll see it reported as long as the NZTA and Police remain significant TV advertisers.

oneofsix

14th June 2011, 21:12

One day Mainstream TV will actually correlate a long weekend road toll with fuel sales for the same weekend. It would be childishly easy and would result in some actually meaningful news. However it will also confirm the AA's research that speed-limit enforcement has had no effect on the road toll so I doubt we'll see it reported as long as the NZTA and Police remain significant TV advertisers.

the petrol retailers might have an issue with providing the commerically senistive information required to allow this to happen.
Don't know if the :Police: are partly to blame or victims of propaganda. I suspect they are subjected to NZTA and Government propaganda, and lets not forget the marketing spiel from the camera/radar companies.

Jack Miller

14th June 2011, 21:25

The data would be there but I have no intention of finding it. It was a personal observation on my behalf as a highway cop working in the killing fields of the north and south Waikato through the 90's and 2000's.
My record was 19 deaths due to crashes in 30 days. That was just when I was rostered on - there were others in that time.

I found the data. It doesn't support your hypothesis. Assuming the 19 fatalities were the result of 10-15 accidents then chances are that exceeding the speed limit was not a factor in any of them. It is only a factor in 1:20 accidents.
The contributing factors were much more likely to have been:
Poor Observation: 48%
Failed Give-Way/Stop: 25%
Poor Handling: 23%
Poor Judgement: 18%

It must be very traumatic to be involved following road fatalities. It is a tragedy that the resulting zeal to make an improvement gets sidetracked into ticketing a few ks over the speed limit, which has almost nothing to do with fatalities.

rastuscat

14th June 2011, 21:28

So you're admitting that Popos are lazy, greedy and couldn't care less about road safety.

Hi Jack................DOH !!!!! Really have to stop saying that. Don't want to upset the air hostesses.

Don't really recall having said that. But hey, I must have , coz you're always right.

Harumph

scumdog

14th June 2011, 21:29

It must be very traumatic to be involved following road fatalities. It is a tragedy that the resulting zeal to make an improvement gets sidetracked into ticketing a few ks over the speed limit, which has almost nothing to do with fatalities.

Don't forget that speed tickets are just part of the picture.

(OK, the least positive, most complained of part)

Kickaha

14th June 2011, 21:32

rastuscat

14th June 2011, 21:47

I found the data........It is a tragedy that the resulting zeal to make an improvement gets sidetracked into ticketing a few ks over the speed limit, which has almost nothing to do with fatalities.

Hi Jack.............DOH :mad:

Look at the bigger pikkie, Obiwan.

No matter what causes your crash (Poor Observation: 48%, Failed Give-Way/Stop: 25%, Poor Handling: 23%, Poor Judgement: 18%, your stats) , the higher the impact speed, the greater the kinetic energy to disperse.

Or, in simpler terms, the faster you go, the bigger the mess. It's the law. Newtons third law of physics. The law you can't break.

People say a couple of things in social situations about speed. They tell you how bad everyone else is as a driver, then they tell you the speed limit should be higher, coz they are safe at 120 km/h. Hmmmmm, not sure how that works.

Have pondered a few schemes over the years, like how we could let qualified people drive at higher speeds. Too many curly issues for it to be practical. More practical just to set a limit, then deal with that. Today the tolerance is normally 10, sometimes down to 4. Seems fairly simple. Sure, it ain't perfect, but it's an honest attempt to minimize the harm of excess kinetic energy on the roads.

The management talks about speed control, I think of it more as kinetic energy management. You call it revenue collecting. Whatever you want to call it, don't speed and don't get a ticket. Simple advice, normally always the best.

Donuts.

Kickaha

14th June 2011, 22:02

They tell you how bad everyone else is as a driver, then they tell you the speed limit should be higher, coz they are safe at 120 km/h.

Dead fucking right it should be 120kmh especially in urban areas

Ronin

14th June 2011, 22:02

Jack Miller

14th June 2011, 22:09

Hi Jack................DOH !!!!! Really have to stop saying that. Don't want to upset the air hostesses.
Don't really recall having said that. But hey, I must have , coz you're always right.
Harumph
Let's take them one at a time - keep it simple:
How can I interpret this:

"I know it can be done, but the process is a beast, and to be avoided. So it is."
as anything other than lazy? i.e.; it's too hard so I'll not bother.

jim.cox

14th June 2011, 22:23

Or, in simpler terms, the faster you go, the bigger the mess. It's the law. Newtons third law of physics. The law you can't break.

Actually its the faster you STOP...

Jack Miller

14th June 2011, 23:22

Hi Jack.............DOH :mad:
Look at the bigger pikkie, Obiwan.
No matter what causes your crash (Poor Observation: 48%, Failed Give-Way/Stop: 25%, Poor Handling: 23%, Poor Judgement: 18%, your stats) , the higher the impact speed, the greater the kinetic energy to disperse.
Or, in simpler terms, the faster you go, the bigger the mess. It's the law. Newtons third law of physics. The law you can't break.

Your stats actually NZ Police Crash Information System. You know those accident forms you fill in...
Anyway, even allowing for the kinetic energy effect, you and your colleagues only record exceeding the speed limit as one of several factors in just 5% of accidents. It simply isn't the big killer that NZTA/Police makes out.

Even so, I'm not a fan of exceeding the speed limit on public roads, and I don't do it. However, like most motorists (AA data) I get a bit annoyed when stuck behind someone who is driving in breach of section 2.1(2) and I wish you'd take some time out of enforcing the speed limit to enforce 2.1(2) with the same vigor:
"If a driver’s speed, when driving, is such as to impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic, that driver must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, move the vehicle as far as practicable to the left side of the roadway when this is necessary to allow following traffic to pass." 2.1.(2)

There are a lot of places where there is plenty of room that could be used if such drivers cared. However, all this "faster you go - bigger the mess" propaganda combined with the blanket zero tolerance enforcement of speed limits but occasional wet-bus-ticket slaps for impeders leaves such road hogs believing they have the right to impede other road users so they don't move left even when the shoulder is a full vehicle wide. Then, when the chance to overtake presents your colleagues make it dangerous by issuing tickets in passing lanes and you don't ticket the impeder.

The law is balanced. "You can't go as fast as you want" is balanced with "you have to get out of other people's way if you're travelling slowly". Police enforcement is not balanced, it is biased: zero-tolerance for speed vs slap-hand for impeding.

Enforce the law with balance and you will find me infinitely less critical. It's not impossible either. You know your territory and you know the places where moving left is safe and practical. If you see someone coming towards you with a queue following and you know there was a safe passing space just up the road it is a safe bet that they were in breach of 2.1.(2). When you pull the impeder over you will be a hero and any of the passing vehicles will be happy to be stopped to give evidence if required to help you convince the JP. But I doubt you'll bother, it's much easier to ticket speeders in passing lanes and you've already betrayed your preference for the easy ticketing options.

Jack Miller

14th June 2011, 23:46

It doesn't support yours either when you're using words like "assuming" "chances are" and "much more likely"

Police experts fill out forms at crashes. On those forms they note factors they believe contributed to the crash. In 5% of crashes "Exceeding the speed limit" is recorded as a factor. In 95% of crashes it is not recorded as a factor. 19 out of every 20 crashes are caused by factors other than exceeding the speed limit! Furthermore, of the 1 in 20 where it is a factor it is just one of several factors.

Note also that the reporting system is biased towards including speed as a factor. Firstly it is prominently placed at the top of the incident form making it easy to tick. Secondly it is easy to interpret inattention and/or tiredness as speed. The officer notes the obstruction and the first point at which the driver could have seen it. He/she then estimates the vehicle's speed based on the distance from that point to the impact. However, if the driver was distracted or tired he/she would not have reacted as soon as the obstruction could have been spotted but rather when they noticed it, which could be much later. The same impact damage could be sustained from a lower speed if the avoiding action started later than it could have had the driver been alert. Thus there is a significant margin of error with the 5% figure. If it is wrong it is too high.

scumdog

15th June 2011, 09:37

Police experts fill out forms at crashes. On those forms they note factors they believe contributed to the crash. In 5% of crashes "Exceeding the speed limit" is recorded as a factor. In 95% of crashes it is not recorded as a factor.
Maybe because they didn't know/couldn't find out?

Oh, and not all that fill in these forms are 'experts' by any means - but thanks for the credit.

Anyway, who cares....

MSTRS

15th June 2011, 11:18

...but it's an honest attempt...

You almost had me. Until this point.

oneofsix

15th June 2011, 11:29

vs slap-hand for impeding.

When you pull the impeder over you will be a hero .

slapping the impeder's hand is a bit violent, more likely to pat him on the back. Actually the pat on the back just about works for me, anything providing they pull the fucker over and therefore get them out the way, hence why I left the last quote.
:psst: rumour has it there are some countries or states where if you are traveling below the limit and have more than 4 cars behind you you get ticketed. With a law like that not the wishy washy 'impeding' and 'responsible' wording we have, it wouldn't be hard to get the JP to support the ticket as most of them get just as pissed of with the road hog.

Jack Miller

15th June 2011, 11:30

Maybe because they didn't know/couldn't find out?

That would be true for all the other factors as well, they could be present but undetectable. It should balance out overall.

Jack Miller

15th June 2011, 11:35

the petrol retailers might have an issue with providing the commerically senistive information required to allow this to happen.

Good point. So the reporters should ask the IRD how much fuel tax they collected. That should do the job without disclosing any confidential market-share fuel company data.

rastuscat

15th June 2011, 13:27

Your stats actually NZ Police Crash Information System. You know those accident forms you fill in...
If you see someone coming towards you with a queue following and you know there was a safe passing space just up the road it is a safe bet that they were in breach of 2.1.(2). When you pull the impeder over you will be a hero and any of the passing vehicles will be happy to be stopped to give evidence if required to help you convince the JP.

Yes, I do actually know those TCR forms. Nowhere do they have a box to fill in that allows me to travel back in time and measure the speed the driver was doing before they crashed. It's normally a question we ask the driver, and lets face it, who is going to be honest and admit to having been doing in excess of the limit when the nasty policeman is asking you. So most people who crash are doing the speed limit or less. Yes, I could spend hours doing analysis of the scene, vehicles and witnesses, and prove they were doing more, but the donut shop would be closed by the time i was finished, and we can't have that. In essence, nobody gets charged with speeding arising from a crash, so that field on the form is largely representative, not definitive.

Looking for some advice here Jacko. Imagine yourself in a patrol car (not in the rear seat with handcuffs this time) and you're driving down a country road. 100 km/h limit. A line of cars goes past you in the other direction at 80 km/h. It's obvious that the car in front is holding everyone else up.

If it's a straight road, what's to stop the other cars having gone past? You don't know, as you've only seen what's happening as you went past, a snapshot of the actual possible problem. If it's a narrow, winding road, what chance has the slower car had to pull over and let the others go? You don't know that either.

At the moment the only option is to wait until all the cars have gone past, switch on the bells and whistles and driver like a tosser until you get behind the crawling leader. At which time he'll likely say 'What cars behind me?' Yes, it needs to happen more, but not to the total exclusion of prosecuting the faster drivers too.

So, let me have a fast, efficient, safe way of enforcing it, and I'll be all over it like a rash. As soon as the earthquakes stop, and I go back to work.

rastuscat

15th June 2011, 13:31

Oh, and not all that fill in these forms are 'experts' by any means - but thanks for the credit.

Come on Scummie, you know we don't take credit. It's cash or donuts only.:lol:

Scuba_Steve

15th June 2011, 13:41

Or, in simpler terms, the faster you go, the bigger the mess.

Ohh you must not have got the memo... that propaganda got pulled for being factually inaccurate (as proved but 18-wheelers).

oneofsix

15th June 2011, 14:00

Ohh you must not have got the memo... that propaganda got pulled for being factually inaccurate (as proved but 18-wheelers).

now now don't go bring physics and all that weight and inertia stuff in to it. You know how we hate facts to get in the way of the arguments here. Fluffy ideas like speed and mess are much better when it comes to propaganda, they mix truth with :BS: so much better than facts.

marty

15th June 2011, 14:19

I found the data. It doesn't support your hypothesis. Assuming the 19 fatalities were the result of 10-15 accidents then chances are that exceeding the speed limit was not a factor in any of them. It is only a factor in 1:20 accidents.
The contributing factors were much more likely to have been:
Poor Observation: 48%
Failed Give-Way/Stop: 25%
Poor Handling: 23%
Poor Judgement: 18%

It must be very traumatic to be involved following road fatalities. It is a tragedy that the resulting zeal to make an improvement gets sidetracked into ticketing a few ks over the speed limit, which has almost nothing to do with fatalities.

way back in the early 90's we didn't have a serious crash office, and in fact even the coroner would sometimes deal with the death as 'due a car crash' so limited information was recorded.

bottom line is, the average speeds that i saw dropped significantly - higher visibility and dedicated patrol by HP cars, more ticketing - or more targetting ticketing perhaps, better recording of possible causes (again - don't forget that many of the stats that you are relying on i would say were only consistant from around 2001 when SCU really started to get serious - until then it was a bit of a mish-mash).

it is a pointless agrument really. I know what me and my (ex)colleagues have seen happening on the roads - it doesn't really matter a squat to me if it is through speed reduction or whatever else. You are stating statistics, but I am not sure for what purpose?

AS a closing from me - have a read of George L. Kelling & James Q Nelson's books on Broken Windows law enforcement. Cops are not there to educate, unless you want to be educated by simply dumping cash in the consolidated fund

MSTRS

15th June 2011, 14:37

... it doesn't really matter a squat to me if it is through speed reduction or whatever else. ....

Right there is the problem. Stats say that speed is a very minor factor in most crashes. Therefore, targeting speed as the first line of defence is not the answer. Yet that is precisely what is, and has been, happening.
Would you keep weather-proofing your windows if your roof was leaking?

rastuscat

15th June 2011, 16:06

Right there is the problem. Stats say that speed is a very minor factor in most crashes. Therefore, targeting speed as the first line of defence is not the answer.

Yes, and the stats are gathered from traffic crash reports, which poorly record a small percentage of actual crashes.

The problem with your argument is that it is based on the only set of stats we have, traffic crash reports attended by police. Thing is, people (the gubbermint too) take them as gospel, when they are approximate at best. They are okay for measuring trends, but take it from someone who has been filling them out for years, they are a poor stat gathering tool at best.

Ho hum.

rastuscat

15th June 2011, 16:07

Would you keep weather-proofing your windows if your roof was leaking?

No. I'd move out of Christchurch, as every time you fix your roof the bloody thing gets knocked by the next aftershock.

MSTRS

15th June 2011, 16:15

Yes, and the stats are gathered from traffic crash reports, which poorly record a small percentage of actual crashes.

The problem with your argument is that it is based on the only set of stats we have, traffic crash reports attended by police. Thing is, people (the gubbermint too) take them as gospel, when they are approximate at best. They are okay for measuring trends, but take it from someone who has been filling them out for years, they are a poor stat gathering tool at best.

Ho hum.

In which case, the problem with your argument is you can't prove speed is a factor that needs to be targeted.
Fuck me, we're surrounded by Govt, and their agencies, cracking down on the country via the use of flawed stats.
Fucking banana republic politics, that is.

Jack Miller

15th June 2011, 16:28

Yes, I could spend hours doing analysis of the scene, vehicles and witnesses, and prove they were doing more, but the donut shop would be closed by the time i was finished, and we can't have that.
So once again you are telling me you can't be bothered doing your job.

Looking for some advice here Jacko. ....
So, let me have a fast, efficient, safe way of enforcing it, and I'll be all over it like a rash. As soon as the earthquakes stop, and I go back to work.
Photograph the impeder and cars following (be sure to get the Regos.) Write to the owners of the following cars, explain the impeding rule to them and invite them to be witnesses in charges against the impeder. Send a ticket to the impeder mentioning that you have witnesses in case they decide to go to court. Like a speeding fine, most people will simply pay it and the lesson will begin to become known.

But seriously, why are you asking me? I haven't chosen a law enforcement career. If you can't work out how to enforce it then you shouldn't be an enforcer. If you don't know how to do your job then get another job you can do and stop wasting my taxes.

Yes, it needs to happen more, Well that's a start - you've admitted there is a problem

but not to the total exclusion of prosecuting the faster drivers too.

I didn't say "to the total exclusion" I just asked you to be balanced not prejudiced in your enforcement. If you are going to continue to pull over and ticket everyone you see speeding then, if you want to reflect the balance that is written into the law, you have to pull over and ticket everyone you see impeding. Although I think a bit of leeway with both would be better but I leave that up to you. Just be balanced not prejudiced.

Max Preload

15th June 2011, 19:02

FJRider

15th June 2011, 19:41

Caught? doing what? Nothing illegal, the charges were dropped.

Charges being dropped does not mean "Nothing illegal" took place ... just means some piss-ant bleater is not worth chasing through the courts ... taking officers off the road ... for a measly few hundred $$$ in fines ...

The speed limits are law ... "tolerances" are not ... keep pushing the issue and "tolerances" will vanish ... and the speed limit will be FINAL ... end of story ...

Like it or not ... the 4 km/hr "tolerance" has been accepted ... EXPECT a reduction in the "Tolerance" ... soon ... NO act of Parliament is required for this to happen ... JUST A CHANGE OF POLICY ...

davereid

15th June 2011, 19:50

Yes, and the stats are gathered from traffic crash reports, which poorly record a small percentage of actual crashes.

The problem with your argument is that it is based on the only set of stats we have, traffic crash reports attended by police. Thing is, people (the gubbermint too) take them as gospel, when they are approximate at best. They are okay for measuring trends, but take it from someone who has been filling them out for years, they are a poor stat gathering tool at best.

Ho hum.

The stats on danger per unit speed, are not really relevant.

"Safer roads" is the governments new policy.

It basically accepts that some people will drive safely at 160, and some are a liability at 30.

But what it says is, that if we all drove at 20, even if we did fuck up, we would mostly survive.

So, speed limit enforcement now, is not about "safety". Its about "survivability".

And the laws of physics are clear. The faster you go, the bigger the mess. Even if you didnt cause it.

FJRider

15th June 2011, 20:02

The stats on danger per unit speed, are not really relevant.

"Safer roads" is the governments new policy.

It basically accepts that some people will drive safely at 160, and some are a liability at 30.

But what it says is, that if we all drove at 20, even if we did fuck up, we would mostly survive.

So, speed limit enforcement now, is not about "safety". Its about "survivability".

And the laws of physics are clear. The faster you go, the bigger the mess. Even if you didnt cause it.

The "policy'" is geared to the ability of the lowest common denominator ... the biggest idiot one could expect to find on the road ... and they are found in an increasing regularity ...

Find a (legal) way of keeping the idiots off the road and things may change ... everybody OBEYING the current laws ... may be proof those idiots no longer exist ...

Personally ... I see no change ... soon ...

FJRider

15th June 2011, 20:14

Right there is the problem. Stats say that speed is a very minor factor in most crashes. Therefore, targeting speed as the first line of defence is not the answer. Yet that is precisely what is, and has been, happening.
Would you keep weather-proofing your windows if your roof was leaking?

Funny how ... if you find water on the floor, you look at the roof ... you see the window open ... but hey ... it MUST be the roof ... eh ...

perhaps ... if we do close the windows ... and go from there ... ???

rastuscat

15th June 2011, 20:24

So once again you are telling me you can't be bothered doing your job.

Send a ticket to the impeder mentioning that you have witnesses in case they decide to go to court.

Well that's a start - you've admitted there is a problem

Yes, there is a problem. In fact, lots of problems.

Thing is, it's rarely as easy as you seem to think. We work in the real world, where the Bill of Rights Act means more than the Victims of Offences Act. We have to do things per the law, lest we start another poor me thread of KB.

Oddly, I agree with a lot of your sentiments, but have spent over two decades coming to terms with the realities of how we work in the environment we do. Nothing we do is ideal, and reels from compromise caused by history and reality.

Walk a mile in my shoes. We can't spend hours investigating every crash we attend, as we'd be telling even more people we don't have a car to attend their job. Enjoy the luxury of your armchair, it's the most comfortable place for a critic.

PM me, come for a ride, maybe we can find some more stuff to agree on. I'll provide the donuts.

Basically we just won't agree on a lot of stuff, but that's okay.

Mom

15th June 2011, 20:34

Very good reading.No doubt the popo will claim this long weekends 4kph over limit a huge success, even though the crap weather will keep a lot of people at home.

That, and the fact the the Metservice TOLD everyone the weather was going to be crap, so they never left home in the first place...

Scuba_Steve

15th June 2011, 21:02

So, speed limit enforcement now, is not about "safety". Its about "survivability".

And the laws of physics are clear. The faster you go, the bigger the mess. Even if you didnt cause it.

yea I'm gonna have to repeat

Ohh you must not have got the memo... that propaganda got pulled for being factually inaccurate

Ocean1

15th June 2011, 21:04

So, speed limit enforcement now, is not about "safety". Its about "survivability".
How?

Where’s the target? I’ve never at any time heard anyone say “x fatalities per y kilometres is OK, that’s what we’ll go for.” Modern safety systems don’t work that way, do they? You’ll never hear anyone responsible for public safety say anything other than “Zero accidents is the target”. It’s bullshit, of course. If you interpolate the speed at which zero fatalities would occur you’ll get... 0kph. The natural course of any “zero tolerance” speed and enforcement policy set is pretty obviously untenable and I reckon we’re already way too far down that path.

I found the numbers recently, the number of kilometres you get to travel before you die, on average. I found it acceptable. You may not, I duno. But if, instead of blindly following a flawed ideology they did actually acquire the balls to stipulate an acceptable fatality rate on our behalf would we accept it? Should we allow them that much control over our lives?

And why?

The argument that what most see as unreasonable limits on driving / riding behaviour was driven by revenue considerations was largely torpedoed by the reduction of fines and increased brownie points. That’s all right, then, the real reason must be that it’s in our own best interest. But...

Given that, (generally) government has no right to dictate any individual’s behaviour unless it’s demonstrably dangerous then the only visible justification for the obsessive focus on speed is the desire to reduce ACC costs. Ethically I don't buy it, I didn't agree to transform myself into a meek and obsessively careful wee pixie when ACC was introduced and the rates set. And I don't see that how I choose to live my life is something anybody else should get involved in now.

However, whether I agree with it or not it seems to me that these somewhat OTT rules and enforcement strategies are in fact driven by ACC related costs. I know they've got the legal authority to generate enforcement policy at variance with the wishes of the majority. It's done all the time. But I tend to feel that not only do the authorities have no ethical right to persecute drivers / riders for behaviour that the majority obviously consider OK but that they’re arguably wasting resources that same majority would prefer focused elsewhere.

In such cases it shouldn’t surprise authorities when the general public treat the law with distain. Derision, even.

Fuckem.

scumdog

15th June 2011, 23:21

[QUOTE=Jack Miller;1130087392

But seriously, why are you asking me? I haven't chosen a law enforcement career. If you can't work out how to enforce it then you shouldn't be an enforcer. If you don't know how to do your job then get another job you can do and stop wasting my taxes.

.[/QUOTE]

Why haven't you?
- you certainly seem to know how and which the laws SHOULD be enforced..:rolleyes:

rastuscat

16th June 2011, 07:55

oneofsix

16th June 2011, 08:12

I keep reading how we are so focussed on speed. About how we do all we can to write every speed ticket we ever can.

For the record, there are sections of Popo who do bugger all speed work. For example, my section deals with the D&F offences, which are largely the ones that cause the crashes. Offences are each given a code, and are grouped into series. D&F offences tend to be the stop signs, traffic lights, failing to give way type things. Following too close is another, but that doesn't get enough attention.

Speed work is important, given that when someone fails to give way to you, it's better to be going 50 than 60. But it's the FGW that needs attention too.

Fair to say that generalising Popos as speed focussed is like generalising KB folk as all belonging to one particular group. What you'll do is piss the majority off who don't belong to that group.

If you want to put me in a group, call it the D&F & restraints group. Basic, roadcraft offences.

Harumph.:mad:

Nice of you to nail your colours to the mask, I respect the work. The Police get painted that way because of these speed campaigns. I know someone will start a thread based on this but when your minister, and yes because the word police is in the title people then think :Police: and not politician, say stupid shit like this "A zero tolerance on speeding to cut road deaths should be extended, the police minister says." http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5150035/Zero-tolerance-on-speeding-all-the-time. It is going to get people angry because it goes against the unbiased research. The D-F section will just get busier as people focus more on their speed or alternatively say Fuck-it, wear the ticket and the number of unlicenced drivers increases. The anger and lack of respect for the group in the front line handing out the tickets will of course increase so good luck dealing with those hotheaded drunks at the next party/pub raid in the weekends.
Judith Colin is a :tugger: as is Nick Smith. Umm is there a political party theme here :scratch:

MSTRS

16th June 2011, 08:34

I keep reading how we are so focussed on speed. About how we do all we can to write every speed ticket we ever can.

Because they are the most visible...fixed cameras, camera vans, instant-on radars, handheld radars, TV ads, roadside billboards.

For the record, there are sections of Popo who do bugger all ... roadcraft offences.

No doubt they exist as well...

Harumph, indeed.

Ocean1

16th June 2011, 09:09

Judith Colin is a :tugger: as is Nick Smith. Umm is there a political party theme here :scratch:

She says it's a police initiative.

But the experts are the police, not me.

During the 1970s, more than 750 people died on the roads every year. "Whatever is happening, we are doing very well and unless something extraordinary happens we are in for a stellar year in this context.

Is there any point in telling him what did actually happened to cause that improvement?

"we are not going to give up on this one."

Apparently not, the facts don't influence their behaviour. Surprise surprise.

They know they're supposed to be there for US, and they know this isn't what the majority want, that's why they constantly fabricate evidence to support their bullshit:

"I hear a great deal of support for it, after it was shown to be successful in those long weekends," Ms Collins told Parliament's law and order select committee."

Like I said, fuckem.

oneofsix

16th June 2011, 09:15

She says it's a police initiative.

Like I said, fuckem.

Politician spin. as she is the "minister of police" when she says it is become a police initiative.

Now Ms Collins has suggested the policy, which she described as staggeringly successful, should be broadened beyond long weekends.
Doesn't sound like it came from the police to me.

And Police Commissioner Peter Marshall said police were assessing their approach and the idea was not "beyond the possibility".
Translates to not having enough guts to to stand up to the minister so his staff can do a proper job.

scumdog

16th June 2011, 09:23

scumdog

16th June 2011, 09:25

"A zero tolerance on speeding

Hell next thing it will be zero tolerance on drink-driving too...:whistle:

oneofsix

16th June 2011, 09:27

Sums up my thoughts too.

BTW: The last ticket I wrote (and the first ticket for nearly a week) was for parking on the incorrect side of the road.

The one before it was for a dingus not wearing a seatbelt.

Is that ok with you Jack???:scratch:

come yee to Paraparaumu, you could meet your target for the year to come writing out tickets for parking on the wrong side of the road. Do the retards not realise the reflectors are in their tail lights? and how do they get there without driving on the wrong side of the road?

Swoop

16th June 2011, 09:45

However, like most motorists (AA data) I get a bit annoyed when stuck behind someone who is driving in breach of section 2.1(2) and I wish you'd take some time out of enforcing the speed limit to enforce 2.1(2) with the same vigor:
"If a driver’s speed, when driving, is such as to impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic, that driver must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, move the vehicle as far as practicable to the left side of the roadway when this is necessary to allow following traffic to pass." 2.1.(2)
If that rule ever gets applied in NZ, an officer's quota could be filled within half an hour (on most roads).

But, as we all know, "speed kills".:tugger:

scumdog

16th June 2011, 10:24

But, as we all know, "speed kills".:tugger:

Got to be true - I've seen that mentioned on KB more than anywhere else - and we all know if it's on KB it must be true!

Beren

16th June 2011, 10:26

I really love the dumb ass nature of most of the comment on here it makes for wonderful reading. Someone shares a valuable story about how to succesfully fight a ticket they thought they had been given unfairly. Awesome - valuable background information if we ever get the same issue. Whinging on about speed not being a factor in accidents - DUMB SODDING STUPIDITY.

On certain roads that are 100 and 80km/h limits I have been averaging over 110 for the last 6 weeks. Therefore if I have an accident it will be reasonable to suggest that speed wont be the cause. It is pretty bloody obvious though that if I am cranked over going round a corner at 130ish and then a sheep jumps out and molests me that I am going to have a more serious prang than if I was doing 80. Tis physics Jim. SPEED MIGHT NOT BE THE CAUSE - IT WILL LAND ME DEEPER IN THE SHIT THOUGH.

A real life Traffic cop sharing his general agreement with the fact that they don't think speed is as important a rule and sharing his frustrations about actually dumb shit drivers being unsafe on a Motorbike Forum - Awesome. Laying into the poor bugger and doing your best to alienate a copper that might be the one that next pulls you over. ARE YOU GUYS COMPLETELY MENTAL? Do you want inside info about what policies and mentalities drive the Police here, I do - and I hope that retards being abusive to coppers on here don't drive away a really awesome source of information - not to mention potential fun person to learn something off one day.

Now I don't drink AT ALL and ride - I won't have more than a few if I am going to be riding the next morning. I make sure I am in bed early enough not to be riding knackered. Because I am riding at a reasonable pace for my skill level I am paying proper attention to the road not trying to text or do my make-up. Nor do I have a whining kid in the back taking up some of my attention. So in my mind I am riding at a speed that is perfectly safe. Being as I am riding on L plates do I expect to get away with it... Nope. Do I wish that the police would spend more time on patrol finding dangerous people to pull over rather than sat in unmarked vans writing speeding tickets - hell yes.

For what it's worth if the police made the 2 second rule law (assuming it's not because virtually no-one seems to pay it any attention!) then people would have room to react to speed. If they added to that people actually using their bloody indicators before starting to manouver then it would rule out far more. Start a campaign with half a dozen cop cars doing a loop of the motorway enforcing those rules for a while, as well as stamping down on other careless activity and perhaps it would ripple out slowly.

Scuba_Steve

16th June 2011, 10:33

Hell next thing it will be zero tolerance on drink-driving too...:whistle:

Thought there already was unless you were a cop, judge, celebrity or politician :shutup:

MSTRS

16th June 2011, 10:43

On certain roads that are 100 and 80km/h limits I have been averaging over 110 for the last 6 weeks. ... if I am cranked over going round a corner at 130ish...I am riding at a reasonable pace for my skill level ...I am riding on L plates...

Maybe you are a perfectly capable rider, but your licence-class says you are not. And yet you 'berate' the police for not doing more about the multitude of other-than-speed offences out there.

Swoop

16th June 2011, 11:24

Got to be true - I've seen that mentioned on KB more than anywhere else - and we all know if it's on KB it must be true!
KB has spread the word. Even the gubbinment is copying and spreading the propaganda now.:killingme

NordieBoy

16th June 2011, 11:47

I think physics should be made illegal.
Seems to be the cause of most accidents...

scumdog

16th June 2011, 11:51

For what it's worth if the police made the 2 second rule law (assuming it's not because virtually no-one seems to pay it any attention!) then people would have room to react to speed. If they added to that people actually using their bloody indicators before starting to manouver then it would rule out far more. Start a campaign with half a dozen cop cars doing a loop of the motorway enforcing those rules for a while, as well as stamping down on other careless activity and perhaps it would ripple out slowly.

They had make an exception for motorcyclists then - otherwise HEAPS of bikers would be getting pinged.

Beren

16th June 2011, 11:51

Maybe you are a perfectly capable rider, but your licence-class says you are not. And yet you 'berate' the police for not doing more about the multitude of other-than-speed offences out there.

Perhaps I didn't say clearly enough, that since I am on L plates I would expect to get stopped. Please don't worry about making an invalid point having not read my post though.

I didn't think I was 'berating' the police as you put it. I was trying to suggest something else that I think they could do to make the roads safer. I would love there to be a target for police to give out more dangerous/reckless driving tickets than any other, so that they have a clear emphasis on what they are trying to achieve. Not sure if it is workable - but I think it would certainly not do their PR any harm!

Beren

16th June 2011, 11:54

They had make an exception for motorcyclists then - otherwise HEAPS of bikers would be getting pinged.

There is almost always at least a 2 second gap in the traffic I could get through though :)

Actually sarcastic comment aside I think that as a rule we damn well should be keeping safe distance from the cages we all think are dumb, blind, mobile road hazards. Other than immediately before overtaking I keep to at least 2 seconds 95% of the time. (I sure aint perfect but I do try and walk what I talk!)

MSTRS

16th June 2011, 12:08

I was trying to suggest something else that I think they could do to make the roads safer.

I cherry picked parts of your post to illustrate that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...
I agree entirely that there is too much emphasis on the speed thing. It is just so easy for them to 'get a result' tho...don't have to be right on the spot to catch someone. Most other traffic offences, one has to be right there and looking at said vehicle's movements to pick up on the offence. It is strange how most drivers know the rules when a cop is right there.

Beren

16th June 2011, 13:12

I cherry picked parts of your post to illustrate that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...
I agree entirely that there is too much emphasis on the speed thing. It is just so easy for them to 'get a result' tho...don't have to be right on the spot to catch someone. Most other traffic offences, one has to be right there and looking at said vehicle's movements to pick up on the offence. It is strange how most drivers know the rules when a cop is right there.

Yup was highly amusing this morning, there was a patrol car going over the bridge and I was one of at least 6 bikes sitting a few car lenghts behind him waiting for him to pull off before continuing to split... which goes to show that we all think the lanes are probably a bit tight to split going over the bridge - yet we all do it every morning!

oneofsix

16th June 2011, 13:27

Yup was highly amusing this morning, there was a patrol car going over the bridge and I was one of at least 6 bikes sitting a few car lenghts behind him waiting for him to pull off before continuing to split... which goes to show that we all think the lanes are probably a bit tight to split going over the bridge - yet we all do it every morning!

In that case it is not necessarily a case of knowing the rules more a case of not wanting to put up with the :BS: should your passing him hurt the :police: ego.

scumdog

16th June 2011, 14:33

It is strange how most drivers know the rules when a cop is right there.

Or don't as the case may be - like when people try to give way to a cop car when it's sitting at a Stop sign...or people that come to a complete stop at a Give Way when they see a cop car nearby - even when it's the only car in the vicinity and they don't have to give way to it...

oneofsix

16th June 2011, 14:44

Or don't as the case may be - like when people try to give way to a cop car when it's sitting at a Stop sign...or people that come to a complete stop at a Give Way when they see a cop car nearby - even when it's the only car in the vicinity and they don't have to give way to it...

:lol: Hope it doesn't cause you to spill the coffee.
I love :angry: the 3 lane hold ups, cop doing 95 in left lane but everyone too afraid to pass. All 3 lanes clear in front of the cop.

Jack Miller

16th June 2011, 15:33

Charges being dropped does not mean "Nothing illegal" took place ... just means some piss-ant bleater is not worth chasing through the courts ... taking officers off the road ... for a measly few hundred $$$ in fines ...

Nonetheless, I didn't break the law. But if your comment is true it betrays yet again that the traffic police really don't care and can't be bothered - they just want easy revenue. Surely "piss-ant-bleaters" who actually do drive illegally are the ones you want to prosecute most! Are you telling me the Police don't care about justice and simply give up if it gets a bit hard?

MSTRS

16th June 2011, 15:34

Or don't as the case may be - like when people try to give way to a cop car when it's sitting at a Stop sign...or people that come to a complete stop at a Give Way when they see a cop car nearby - even when it's the only car in the vicinity and they don't have to give way to it...

Ah - you're talking about the ones that Darwin forgot. The missing link. Yea - they're out there too...

rastuscat

16th June 2011, 15:50

Nonetheless, I didn't break the law. But if your comment is true it betrays yet again that the traffic police really don't care and can't be bothered - they just want easy revenue.

Hi Jack. Cringe. Did it again. Here comes the hostess with her handcuffs.

Cool that you didn't break the law. It means you shouldn't have had the ticket.

Keep not breaking the law, thanks. Best way to avoid tickets.

I saw a guy drive through a red light once, he denied it and called me a lying, revenue collecting bastard. Questioned my motivation, and if I was in the right job. Wanted me to wear glasses. Wrote a letter to that effect. Wanted me sacked, wrote to my boss, the whole nine yards. Probably got onto a web forum somewhere and bitched about revenue collecting snakes. Probably had a thousand replies about all the injustice of the world, and how the cops are all corrupt scum.

Thing is, I had it on video. Fair and square F110 (red light offence).

Now, we can't always do that for practical reasons, but it was sweet showing him the video, and watching him eat humble pie.:banana::banana:

Beren

16th June 2011, 16:25

Now, we can't always do that for practical reasons, but it was sweet showing him the video, and watching him eat humble pie.:banana::banana:

That's Beautiful. Completely getting one over on someone is pretty damn awesome.

Jack Miller

16th June 2011, 16:55

Why haven't you? (taken up a career in traffic enforcement)
- you certainly seem to know how and which the laws SHOULD be enforced..:rolleyes:

The simple answer is because traffic enforcement has no significant impact on road safety so I wouldn't be interested.

The longer answer is:
If they offered me the top Traffic job I'd be into it. Anything other than the top job would be too constrained by current policy & culture, which are misaligned. However, before I took it on the superiors in Govt & the Police would have to have a change of attitude and my role, which I'd relish, would be to implement the change. The result would be a 75% cut in the traffic enforcement budget with an equal cut in enforcement activity. Only those that got their heads round the new direction would get to keep their jobs.

The other thing the superiors would have to agree to is to spend the 75% (at least) on initiatives that will actually improve road safety, but it would not be in the Police budget. The key initiatives would be
1. Self explaining and forgiving roads (Google it)
2. Replace all speed limits (that imply the limit is always safe) with speed zones like the existing LSZ but with a nominal "good conditions" speed that can be exceded up to say 40% when overtaking but must also be decreased up to 40% in fog/hail/snow/congestion...

There is plenty of detail I could provide and this also needs more thought. But since this thread has strong elements of speed and passing lanes, here are a couple of examples:

* Size & space the dotted white lines so that they are always flashing past at the same frequency if you are travelling at the nominal speed for the zone. i.e. the dashes are shorter and closer together in Urban zones and longer & further spaced in Rural zones. Then delete all the speed limit "target" signs. This would cost nothing - the lines are already being painted. In fact it would save a lot of signage cost.

* Repaint passing lanes so the left lane is narrower (to stop people speeding up subconsciously because they feel safer just when everyone behind them wants to pass.) Make the overtaking lane wider. Close up the dotted lines marking the left lane. Space out the dotted lines marking the passing lane. Align incoming traffic to the left lane but make exiting from the left lane a dog-leg reminding the impeders to let past all those who have accumulated behind. This would also cost nothing.

As you can see, this has nothing to do with Policing, which is appropriate because Policing has been proven to have no effect. Road safety initiatives that have actually worked are:
1. Vehicle improvements (eg; It is only a matter of time before we will be able to buy helmet-mounted accelerometers that will detect head-nodding, and cameras monitoring the rider's eyes detecting that myopic "glased state" both of which indicate a tired inattentive rider, and raise an alarm. These systems will be available in cars too. As another example, some cars already have RADAR-based blind spot monitors, which is good for us riders.)
2. Road improvements (Rumble strips, roadside hazard removal, etc...)

rastuscat

16th June 2011, 17:13

Whoa Jack, hold the phone.

Good that you have not applied for the job. You have some great theoretical ideas, but the job exists in the real world, not an ideological one.

I like some of what you've suggested, and it proves that you've given it some thought.

My problem is that I have the actual job, and have to comply with actual rules, actual law, our actual environment. Actual donuts too, but they're all good.

A safe system is what you are talking about, and no, it isn't much to do with the police. It's largely engineering and education based, and we do the enforcement. Out of interest, NZ is heading that way, but we still have a long, long way to go.

So, in summary, you want all the good ideas implemented, and to be able to drive as if they have been but now, before they are implemented.

Implementation would cost more than the recent earthquakes. Notably, if everyone wore seatbelts tomorrow and from then on, it would do a lot of good but cost nothing. If everyone didn't use cellphones while driving, it would save a life occasionally at bugger all cost.

See, overnight things could improve, if everyone looked into a mirror and realised that they are the one person with the absolute most ability to improve their own safety. Take personal responsibility, drive to the actual environment, the one that actually exists.

Now, THERE'S a wish list.

Jack Miller

16th June 2011, 17:18

I keep reading how we are so focussed on speed. About how we do all we can to write every speed ticket we ever can.

That's because it is just about all we see on TV and on the road. Still you make a point and that impression could be wrong, so my next piece of research will be an Official Information Act request to Paula Rose for the ticketing statistics or better yet, resource allocation. i.e.; how many enforcement hours are spent enforcing each of; speed limit, give-way / stop, alcohol, keep left, indicate, etc. If she can't provide enforcement-hours then number of tickets for each category would do. Perhaps you can save me the trouble. What percentage of traffic tickets are issued for exceding the speeed limit?

If you want to put me in a group, call it the D&F & restraints group. Basic, roadcraft offences.

Sorry if I appeared to be attacking you personally. If you are capable of seeing a vehicle passing a queue in a passing lane without immediately jumping to the conclusion that the passing vehicle is at fault, but are just as likely to conclude the vehicle leading the queue is an impeder, and you are prepared to pull it over & issue a ticket then you are not part of the problem I found myself forced into fighting. In that case, please don't take it personally.

Of course, if other's following the thread are pure speed limit enforcers, then they should take it personally.

MSTRS

16th June 2011, 17:30

See, overnight things could improve, if everyone looked into a mirror and realised that they are the one person with the absolute most ability to improve their own safety. Take personal responsibility, drive to the actual environment, the one that actually exists.

Now, THERE'S a wish list.

What? You mean...think for themselves, and obey the rules? Come on - you're on a hiding to nothing there.
Utopia would be removing all those who can't drive, don't know/follow the rules (and yes, that includes cops...) - hell, the roads would be all but empty, and I could enjoy them, knowing that the only other road users would be brilliant drivers too, as well as not worrying about the rules. Because there'd be so few motorists, that the rules could all be rescinded.
And you lot could get on with the real shit. Like catching burglars and babykillers...

Jack Miller

16th June 2011, 17:39

Cool that you didn't break the law. ...
Keep not breaking the law, thanks. Best way to avoid tickets.

Except I did get a ticket! That is the whole point:mad:

Scuba_Steve

16th June 2011, 17:42

:Offtopic: but keeping with the theme just heard this from a California chick being interviewed on YouTube clip

Interviewer: "Well what makes you a medium-good driver"
Chick: "I'm not very good at braking"
Interviewer: "Your not good at braking?"
Chick: "No"
Interviewer: "See I think that's a crucial part to driving tho"
Chick: "I don't really think so"
Interviewer: "You don't think so?"
Chick: "No"

Wow! won't it be fun when our drivers retard themselves to that level in a few years

Jack Miller

16th June 2011, 17:51

...you want all the good ideas implemented, and to be able to drive as if they have been
No I don't I just want the enforcers to enforce the existing law including the existing balance that is written into it. Unless the research I am about to undertake disproves it, my hypothesis is that enforcement has become primarily about the speed limit. Just as to a hammer every problem looks like a nail, to today's enforcer (yourself excluded) every road situation looks like a speed problem. This is mightily flawed. It pisses everyone off and it makes the roads MORE DANGEROUS.

Implementation would cost more than the recent earthquakes.
Funny that the examples I gave cost nothing. And you go on to identify some more freebies:

Notably, if everyone wore seatbelts tomorrow and from then on, it would do a lot of good but cost nothing. If everyone didn't use cellphones while driving, it would save a life occasionally at bugger all cost.
As the fleet becomes newer more cars will have seatbelt-not-on warning lights which will have a big impact on your first point with ZERO input from the Police.

rastuscat

16th June 2011, 18:26

Unless the research I am about to undertake disproves it, my hypothesis is that enforcement has become primarily about the speed limit.

FYI, your hypothesis is incorrect. The reality is that our enforcement is based on what we call the Fatal 5, of which speed is only one factor. Alcohol/drug driving, dangerous/careless driving, restraints, high risk drivers.

Save yourself some time and effort, speed isn't the major thing we do. If you're going to get Da Boss to get the stats out, don't include camera tickets. At least, get the stats with and without the camera tickets, that'll give you a better picture of what the road-going Popo is doing. Ask for the ratio of speed offences (excluding camera tickets) to all other offences.

Funny though, as the residents of the eastern suburbs here in Shakeyville want us to spend all our time enforcing the 30 km/h speed limit in their street.

Good luck proving I'm wrong.

It does start to get a little personal when you get hard done by in a circumstance then mount a campaign against what I do and actually believe in. Whether I should be some damn sensitive is another issue. :crybaby::crybaby::crybaby:

Jantar

16th June 2011, 20:28

...

Like it or not ... the 4 km/hr "tolerance" has been accepted ... ...

It has NOT been accepted, it has been imposed. There is a big difference.

Spearfish

16th June 2011, 20:43

It has NOT been accepted, it has been imposed. There is a big difference.

I know what your saying but 4-5k has been proven to work by those who imposed it and are now talking up the 0 tolerance for an even better result. (lordy lordy here we go)
I don't think its as much to do with speed (fark all really) but the fact people are actually thinking about their driving and even more remarkably doing the thinking while doing the driving!
Nothing pulls out the guilty conscience from its dusty box like the fear of getting caught.

Scuba_Steve

16th June 2011, 21:01

I don't think its as much to do with speed (fark all really) but the fact people are actually thinking about their driving and even more remarkably doing the thinking while doing the driving!

:facepalm: oh please tell me your new to the road??? We have worse drivers now than we have ever had during my time on the road & it's just getting worse.

FJRider

16th June 2011, 21:05

It has NOT been accepted, it has been imposed. There is a big difference.

You KNOW its coming back ... like it or not ... imposed or not ... you have to accept that ...

The zero tolerance is next ...

Spearfish

16th June 2011, 22:32

:facepalm: oh please tell me your new to the road??? We have worse drivers now than we have ever had during my time on the road & it's just getting worse.

Thats kinda what I said but with plenty of room left for interpretation unfortunatly.

Another swing and a miss on my part:facepalm:

MSTRS

17th June 2011, 08:52

I know what your saying but 4-5k has been proven to work by those who imposed it and are now talking up the 0 tolerance for an even better result. (lordy lordy here we go)
I don't think its as much to do with speed (fark all really) but the fact people are actually thinking about their driving and even more remarkably doing the thinking while doing the driving!
Nothing pulls out the guilty conscience from its dusty box like the fear of getting caught.

You should have added "Until the 4kph (or 0kph) tolerance becomes the new norm..."
We're all creatures of habit, and we'll simply adjust that habit when forced to.

oneofsix

17th June 2011, 09:00

I know what your saying but 4-5k has been proven to work by those who imposed it and are now talking up the 0 tolerance for an even better result. (lordy lordy here we go)
I don't think its as much to do with speed (fark all really) but the fact people are actually thinking about their driving and even more remarkably doing the thinking while doing the driving!
Nothing pulls out the guilty conscience from its dusty box like the fear of getting caught.

so not the lowered tolerance but the extra policing? IF only the policing was policing of bad driving and not just speed cameras

scumdog

17th June 2011, 09:01

:facepalm: oh please tell me your new to the road??? We have worse drivers now than we have ever had during my time on the road & it's just getting worse.

I don't think they're worse - it's just there's a shit-load more of 'em we have to share the roads with.:yes:

Scuba_Steve

17th June 2011, 09:08

I don't think they're worse - it's just there's a shit-load more of 'em we have to share the roads with.:yes:

I think your right too the concentration of morons is growing, but I swear the level of moron is getting worse too, we are constantly sinking to new lows of retard. It won't be long before they're all like the Cali chick I pointed out above I think

scumdog

17th June 2011, 09:16

I think your right too the concentration of morons is growing, but I swear the level of moron is getting worse too, we are constantly sinking to new lows of retard. It won't be long before they're all like the Cali chick I pointed out above I think

I've already met a person that thought the distance to stop from 50kph would "be about a metre, maybe two?":pinch:

And no, we're not talking about "if you hit a brick wall" here in case some smarty-pants wants to make that comment.

oneofsix

17th June 2011, 09:20

I've already met a person that thought the distance to stop from 50kph would "be about a metre, maybe two?":pinch:

:gob: reaction time? what's that? :scratch:
It is the time your relatives take to react to your death :ar15:

Scuba_Steve

17th June 2011, 09:24

I've already met a person that thought the distance to stop from 50kph would "be about a metre, maybe two?":pinch:

And no, we're not talking about "if you hit a brick wall" here in case some smarty-pants wants to make that comment.

Maybee you should have let them test there theory (in-front of a cliff)... it might have done the driving world a favor :innocent:

Spearfish

17th June 2011, 09:49

:gob: reaction time? what's that? :scratch:
It is the time your relatives take to react to your death :ar15:

Goes with the principle of " with anything going slower than me the 2+ second rule is void"

Has the thread wandered off topic into a general conversation?

scumdog

17th June 2011, 11:04

Goes with the principle of " with anything going slower than me the 2+ second rule is void"?

Seems to be the principal principle of an awful lot of bikers...

oneofsix

17th June 2011, 11:04

Goes with the principle of " with anything going slower than me the 2+ second rule is void"

Has the thread wandered off topic into a general conversation?

:Offtopic: a really long time ago. I keep getting it mixed up with all the other threads on general road use bitching whereas it was started with some legal advice and how it had worked well for the OP, I think :scratch:

oneofsix

17th June 2011, 11:08

Seems to be the principal principle of an awful lot of bikers...

Aw come on scumdog, don't you get motorway traffic down there? It is often hard to get between the car bumpers in rush hour that is why it often feels safer splitting :scooter:

scumdog

17th June 2011, 11:15

Aw come on scumdog, don't you get motorway traffic down there? It is often hard to get between the car bumpers in rush hour that is why it often feels safer splitting :scooter:

First we would need to get a motorway...

oneofsix

17th June 2011, 11:42

First we would need to get a motorway...

argh no road of national significance then. Might have to plan a road trip your way then. :ride:
Now what was this thread about :scratch:

Beren

17th June 2011, 11:55

:facepalm: oh please tell me your new to the road??? We have worse drivers now than we have ever had during my time on the road & it's just getting worse.

I call Bollocks. The standard of driving in New Zealand is not THAT bad. There are just so many more people you have a greater chance of finding a retard. Your grade of Retard is pretty impressive and wide ranging though. Almost as bad as I used to be as a highly aggresive and unskilled driver... though the speeds we did in cages in the UK seem a little different to the speeds I see here... have yet to see anyone doing much above 130-140 ish, though maybe I havn't been driving at the right times.

MSTRS

17th June 2011, 12:04

... have yet to see anyone doing much above 130-140 ish, ..

That is reasonably rare these days (compared to yesteryear). The big problem is lack of attention...as cars and roads get easier to drive, it's increasing.

Scuba_Steve

17th June 2011, 12:10

I call Bollocks. The standard of driving in New Zealand is not THAT bad. There are just so many more people you have a greater chance of finding a retard. Your grade of Retard is pretty impressive and wide ranging though. Almost as bad as I used to be as a highly aggresive and unskilled driver... though the speeds we did in cages in the UK seem a little different to the speeds I see here... have yet to see anyone doing much above 130-140 ish, though maybe I havn't been driving at the right times.

you appear to be comparing NZ drivers to UK drivers??? I was comparing NZ drivers to yesteryear NZ drivers, and the retards are on the increase :yes:

Swoop

17th June 2011, 12:12

I've already met a person that thought the distance to stop from 50kph would "be about a metre, maybe two?"
Good point!
Whatever happened to Skidmark?:scratch:

Ocean1

17th June 2011, 12:23

I don't think they're worse - it's just there's a shit-load more of 'em we have to share the roads with.:yes:

Aw come on scumdog, don't you get motorway traffic down there?

No. In fact I reckon the agressive driving is directly proportional to the traffic density. All is peace and tranquility in the riveria of teh south. No shit, I spent several seconds traversing it last year, not one single attempt to kill me.

That is reasonably rare these days (compared to yesteryear). The big problem is lack of attention...as cars and roads get easier to drive, it's increasing.

Attention does get difficult to maintain at a snail's pace. It's not for no reason that accidents are less frequent at higher speeds.

Beren

17th June 2011, 17:36

That is reasonably rare these days (compared to yesteryear). The big problem is lack of attention...as cars and roads get easier to drive, it's increasing.

Yup I would think very little of driving at 160-180ish kph and don't see anything like those speeds here. You have to be doing over 130ish before the coppers are even really interested in you from a speed perspective in the UK.

Actually I think you're guys problem is the quantity of Auto cars which basically mean you don't need to have any skill whatsoever to drive a car. My last uk car was a loverly Alfa 166 2.5 litre V6 Auto... was awesome but Sooo easy to drive fast with Cruise control leather seats and climate control you could drift around at ummm 170kph without any work at all... but being a big heavy car it was hard work when you got caught out going that fast!

warewolf

17th June 2011, 21:03

I think your right too the concentration of morons is growing, but I swear the level of moron is getting worse too, we are constantly sinking to new lows of retard.It's well known that the level of care taken when driving reduces in tandem with the speed limit, so I wonder why you are seeing more retards, hmmm?

Many studies have shown that when the speed limit increases, people take extra care. But that's too un-PC for the PTB, of course.

Berries

18th June 2011, 01:13

Police experts fill out forms at crashes. On those forms they note factors they believe contributed to the crash. In 5% of crashes "Exceeding the speed limit" is recorded as a factor.
Exceeding the speed limit isn't even on the form.

Even so, I'm not a fan of exceeding the speed limit on public roads, and I don't do it. However, like most motorists (AA data)....
You lost it right there. AA. Motorists. Quite.

BTW: The last ticket I wrote (and the first ticket for nearly a week) was for parking on the incorrect side of the road.
I'd shoot those bastards. Fuck that is so dangerous.

No gingas down your way then ?

superman

18th June 2011, 01:31

I'd shoot those bastards. Fuck that is so dangerous.

I had a guy parked on the wrong side of the road heading home one night. With his lights on, around a tight corner, they look like they are in your lane! Fuck me I pooped myself and skidded like a tosser only to find he was on the side of the road taking a fucking leak. Absolute retarded idiot.

Hamel

8th September 2011, 09:49

Have pondered a few schemes over the years, like how we could let qualified people drive at higher speeds. Too many curly issues for it to be practical. More practical just to set a limit, then deal with that.

Haven’t you just said how that could be achieved? By having better qualified drivers? So, for example, if I:

1) have completed a Level (whatever) Advanced Driving/Riding Course, and
2) I’m travelling in/on a appropriate vehicle which is appropriate for the conditions
3) I’m not infringing in any other way, (DIC, WOF, Rego, etc)
4) I’m travelling within a pre-prescribed range

...perhaps, if I was caught doing slightly over the speed limit, (say 10-20Kph) I might be l looked upon with a degree of leniency.

I have thought about this too and I even have made up a name for it, it’s called 'discretion'. It’s actually a real word, but you cops (reading this) will need to look it up because from recent experience (though I wasn’t driving) you obviously don’t know what it means, or have forgotten it in lieu of the world policy, as in “As you know sir we have a policy of zero tolerance on speed” from the officer hidden under the shadow of a single tree on a long straight road with no other vehicles on it in the middle of the Mackenzie Country.

But the first point would be the key issue, education.

Rastuscat, I applaud your input on this site (though I suspect, from what another cop said to me yesterday about KB, you’re possibly a Police PR mole) you seem far both too intelligent and reasonable to be a product of HP culture. But even if that’s not the case, yours would be a voice of reason in the wilderness. (If you are genuine, I apologise for being negative and discouraging.)

So (to the extent of your good reason and professional scope) deal with it. All I’m saying is, (if you're able to) do so in a fair and balanced manner; like the way that Jack presents his arguments.

Road kill

8th September 2011, 20:57

I would of used the word "Spy" but I guess "Mole" would do as well.
Like when did a cop ever offer a group of bikers a choice in how they'd prefer to be fucked with,,,,come on,, it took another cop to point this out to you:facepalm:

scumdog

8th September 2011, 21:05

I have thought about this too and I even have made up a name for it, it’s called 'discretion'. It’s actually a real word, but you cops (reading this) will need to look it up because from recent experience (though I wasn’t driving) you obviously don’t know what it means, .

Oooo, that smarts.

So 'you cops' don't know what it 'discretion' means eh?

Well 'you people' don't know how to drive safely.

So there.:blah:

Chill out dude, life sucks - so kill yourself or suck it up and move on.

Don't frickin' dwell on all the 'misjustices'/unfairness of life or the bitterness will eat you up.:yes:

rastuscat

8th September 2011, 21:11

I have thought about this too and I even have made up a name for it, it’s called 'discretion'.

You'd be surprised, I suspect, at how much discretion is shown in the real world. People get warnings every day from most Popos, they just don't tell the world about it. I see things every day while out patrolling that I could write tickets for, but don't. Sometimes it's because I've made a balanced judgement as to the nature and circumstances of the offence, sometimes it's coz theres a donut sale on.

But the first point would be the key issue, education.

Thing is and I've said it heaps, the ones who seek out education have already displayed a positive attitude to their safety, and that's 75% of the battle. Those who actually need the education are normally the last to seek it, as they already know it all or don't give a ****

Rastuscat, I applaud your input on this site (though I suspect, from what another cop said to me yesterday about KB, you’re possibly a Police PR mole) you seem far both too intelligent and reasonable to be a product of HP culture. But even if that’s not the case, yours would be a voice of reason in the wilderness. (If you are genuine, I apologise for being negative and discouraging.)

Aw shucks, I'm all goose pimply :facepalm:

I'm not a mole. I'm not clever enough for that. I've been on HP for the last while, but I'm back to the Broken City from next week.

There are more donut shops in town. Swoon.:woohoo:

rastuscat

8th September 2011, 21:17

Good for Jacko if the charges are dropped, as long as he can put his hand on his heart and say he didn't do it.

A plague on those who defend themselves from behind a cloak of lies, technicalities, denial and guilty knowledge.

Equally, a plague on those accusers who accuse in the knowledge of innocence.

Guess that's enough plagues for now.

Donuts. :clap:

Latte

8th September 2011, 21:37

warewolf

10th September 2011, 00:30

Thing is and I've said it heaps, the ones who seek out education have already displayed a positive attitude to their safety, and that's 75% of the battle.Perhaps, but it doesn't help in avoiding tickets for trivial speeding infringements from Mr I've-got-a-quota-or-zero-tolerance-and-no-discretion Popo.

And to rub salt in to the wound, Popo will often ignore blatantly unsafe dangerous driving - as long as it's below the speed limit.

That's not exactly encouraging people to be good, safe drivers now is it? How to win friends and influence people... not.

PS my budget for education has been stolen by ACC, so there'll be no more of that. :angry:

Nzpure

10th September 2011, 23:12

I still don't understand why people get all upset and scream "Revenue Gatherer" everytime they get a speeding ticket...You were speeding, Its against the law.Suck it up. I personally have never had a speeding ticket and i do up v8s and turbo random cars like filthy old commies =D . Im not even classed as a ""responsible adult"" yet im 24 so im stil in the ""Young Dumb and full of cum"" bracket. My secret to lack of infringement is simple. Dont speed, You will get there in the end.
Demerits on rego fines is another thing.....Demerits point for failiure to pay a civic duty:gob:? Thats revenue gathering.......

scumdog

10th September 2011, 23:17

Demerits on rego fines is another thing.....Demerits point for failiure to pay a civic duty:gob:? Thats revenue gathering.......

I agree!:yes:

superman

10th September 2011, 23:46

Warnings hmm... never for speeding have I received warnings only ever tickets. Strategically placed coppers at the bottom of hills going from 100-50 zones etc... Though the cop looked less impressed when I told him I had coasted to 50 at the top of the hill (in the 100 zone) put the car in neutral and just happened to be going 65 at the bottom of the hill due to mr. gravity. Energy efficiency is not an excuse...

However I did get a warning when breaching my restricted license back when I was 15 by having a passenger in the car and it being past "curfew"... he told me he was looking for drunks. Good cunt that man.

thepom

11th September 2011, 07:52

"My secret to lack of infringement is simple. Dont speed, You will get there in the end."

Spoken like a true Harley rider....:innocent:

I,m with you on the speeding and especially the regio demerits points.........this government really has it in for two wheelers ranging from the price to regio a moped to large capacity bikes..........

ynot slow

11th September 2011, 08:00

Never had a problem with speeding fines when caught,mainly as the times befor hadn't been caught,either right on tolerance as we passed,or the cop hadn't had his radar on,and that can be quite often,my radar detector in car didn't go off many times approaching a cop.

The problem with one ticket I did get was approaching cop doing 78km,radar went off and was pinged at 84km(70km area)from behind as we passed.When stopped almost 1.5km away and told that I was bemused,as to this day I believe he picked the car(s)behind me,and my vehicle was typical of student,i.e looked like no wof and reg type whuch it was.I said I heard my radar go off befor hitting the 70km zone and was slowing down,and no I didn't think I had sped as he went passed as detector still was beeping,why do that,and did he not see the car or three behind me,I certainly saw the guy catch me up in a ford maybe it was him.No use arguing so just sat bemused while he gave me the invoice for 84km,not 78km,which I sarcastically said he would do.That and the time I got another ticket for doing 85km in 70km area,but met a native cop with racial overtones,i.e heres ya ticket white man/honkey attitude are times my respect went towards most cops,and the racist cop showed his true colours off duty in our local bar to reaffirm my thoughts on him,loud mouth prat,think he left the area quickly according to a mate working with him told me,yep do have a couple of mates in the force and like many they're good buggers.

sinfull

11th September 2011, 08:13

The problem with one ticket I did get was approaching cop doing 78km,radar went off and was pinged at 84km(70km area)from behind as we passed.When stopped almost 1.5km away and told that I was bemused,as to this day I believe he picked the car(s)behind me,and my vehicle was typical of student,i.e looked like no wof and reg type whuch it was.I said I heard my radar go off befor hitting the 70km zone and was slowing down,and no I didn't think I had sped as he went passed as detector still was beeping,why do that,and did he not see the car or three behind me,I certainly saw the guy catch me up in a ford maybe it was him.No use arguing so just sat bemused while he gave me the invoice for 84km,not 78km,which I sarcastically said he would do.That and the time I got another ticket for doing 85km in 70km area,but met a native cop with racial overtones,i.e heres ya ticket white man/honkey attitude are times my respect went towards most cops,and the racist cop showed his true colours off duty in our local bar to reaffirm my thoughts on him,loud mouth prat,think he left the area quickly according to a mate working with him told me,yep do have a couple of mates in the force and like many they're good buggers.

You need to do sommit about that wall of text ya got going on there !!! I couldn't decipher that lot !

scumdog

11th September 2011, 09:02

"My secret to lack of infringement is simple. Dont speed, You will get there in the end."

Spoken like a true Harley rider....:innocent:.........

You make it sound like there's something wrong with his philosophy...:confused:

thepom

11th September 2011, 09:04

Its easy to stick to on a Harley.......:shutup:

scumdog

11th September 2011, 09:06

Its easy to stick to on a Harley.......:shutup:

You're not wrong, I'd be hopeless on a R1.

rastuscat

11th September 2011, 09:10

Its easy to stick to on a Harley.......:shutup:

It's actually easy to not get speeding tickets. The method above works.

Accepting control of your riding makes it easy to control your outcomes.

It's just uncommon, as it's way too easy to blame someone else. Like revenue collecting Popos.

I used to get cheesed off at Helen and her band of merry socialists attempting to control our lives, until I accepted that I actually control what I do, not her and her gnomes.

Ocean1

11th September 2011, 13:20

I used to get cheesed off at Helen and her band of merry socialists attempting to control our lives, until I accepted that I actually control what I do, not her and her gnomes.

Yeah, it's far better to make your own choices unencumbered by some jumped up authariterian knowall. Getting cheesed off about the gnomes pinging you for it is pointless, just pity them for their ignorance and move on.

rastuscat

11th September 2011, 13:57

Yeah, it's far better to make your own choices unencumbered by some jumped up authariterian knowall. Getting cheesed off about the gnomes pinging you for it is pointless, just pity them for their ignorance and move on.

Sage advice dude.

bluninja

11th September 2011, 14:39

warewolf

11th September 2011, 14:46

It's actually easy to not get speeding tickets. The method above works. Only if the cops are honest eg get the right vehicle, or don't hold a high reading locked in so they can apply it to anyone they don't like.

I used to get cheesed off at Helen and her band of merry socialists attempting to control our lives, until I accepted that I actually control what I do, not her and her gnomes.You only control what you do, within their boundaries. Not the same thing. Prisoners can make the same claim and I wouldn't say they have much control over their lives.

Nzpure

11th September 2011, 18:01

Only if the cops are honest eg get the right vehicle, or don't hold a high reading locked in so they can apply it to anyone they don't like.

If thats a regular occurrence then why has it never happened to me?
I drive a ""High powered turbo vehicle" Being younge it Classes me as a ""Boy Racer"" racer also ride bikes yet, No tickets..

rastuscat

11th September 2011, 18:04

If thats a regular occurrence then why has it never happened to me?

You're new, aren't you.

After a while you'll stop making sense and just whinge along with everyone else. It doesn't matter what else is happening in the world, if it happens to you, it's someone elses fault.

Get with it man, you'll give us a bad name.

bluninja

11th September 2011, 18:16

If thats a regular occurrence then why has it never happened to me?
I drive a ""High powered turbo vehicle" Being younge it Classes me as a ""Boy Racer"" racer also ride bikes yet, No tickets..

No tickets.....YET :yes:

I didn't get any speeding tickets from the age of 17 to the age of 36. I've now had 1 in the uk, and 2 in NZ (all national speed limit). Not happy to have received them, but sometimes stuff happens. I think the current speed restrictions are daft, but understand if I breach them and get caught I have to pay.

I suspect my last ticket was bogus in the sense that it was less than 3 seconds from turning downhill, last in a queue to when I passed the police car. But I was over the posted speed, so my bad.

Nzpure

12th September 2011, 13:43

You're new, aren't you.

After a while you'll stop making sense and just whinge along with everyone else. It doesn't matter what else is happening in the world, if it happens to you, it's someone elses fault.

Get with it man, you'll give us a bad name.

LOL my bad..... F%^king cops revenue gathering

Jack Miller

12th September 2011, 14:47

If thats a regular occurrence then why has it never happened to me?

Perhaps it's not that frequent an occurrence; perhaps you haven't covered enough distance yet; perhaps both.

40,200,000,000 kms traveled by Kiwis each year
750,000 tickets issued each year
= 1 ticket per 57,500km
If 1:10 tickets are bogus you'd still have to be very unlucky to be the one who got it. That's once in every 575,000km.
If 1:100 tickets were bogus that would be once in every 5,750,000kms.
But even 1:100 bogus tickets is far too many - the Police are there to uphold the law not commit fraud.

The fact that you haven't been a victim of it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I'm guessing you haven't ever been murdered either, but that doesn't mean that murders don't happen.

Nzpure

12th September 2011, 15:49

Perhaps it's not that frequent an occurrence; perhaps you haven't covered enough distance yet; perhaps both.

40,200,000,000 kms traveled by Kiwis each year
750,000 tickets issued each year
= 1 ticket per 57,500km
If 1:10 tickets are bogus you'd still have to be very unlucky to be the one who got it. That's once in every 575,000km.
If 1:100 tickets were bogus that would be once in every 5,750,000kms.
But even 1:100 bogus tickets is far too many - the Police are there to uphold the law not commit fraud.

The fact that you haven't been a victim of it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I'm guessing you haven't ever been murdered either, but that doesn't mean that murders don't happen.
I have been murdered twice actually thank god im not dead eh?
If you complain about speeding tickets your just another bleeding heart victim arn't you. Because it couldn't possibly be that you were speeding could it?
If the cop pings you doing 111 km/h your still speeding, its still your fault.

I also rather think i have done the kms to get a ""Bogus"" ticket if such a thing is a regular occurrence. I live in chch and travel via car and soon by motorbike :yes: to katikati up in the north island usually do this twice to three times a year. I also quite frequently travel up to whanagrei where i also have family.
So therefor you arguement is still moot. You got a ticket suck it up stop blaming the popo for doing there job.

Parlane

12th September 2011, 16:03

I have been murdered twice actually thank god im not dead eh?
If you complain about speeding tickets your just another bleeding heart victim arn't you. Because it couldn't possibly be that you were speeding could it?
If the cop pings you doing 111 km/h your still speeding, its still your fault.

I also rather think i have done the kms to get a ""Bogus"" ticket if such a thing is a regular occurrence. I live in chch and travel via car and soon by motorbike :yes: to katikati up in the north island usually do this twice to three times a year. I also quite frequently travel up to whanagrei where i also have family.
So therefor you arguement is still moot. You got a ticket suck it up stop blaming the popo for doing there job.

Do you live in a house with a white picket fence with your wife, two lovely children and a dog?
Do you also not complain about any laws that they introduce that affect you?
You must be living in the perfect world mate.

It is everyone's right to question laws that may or may not make sense. If you don't challenge them you accept them. Which is what you are doing. Would you accept a speed limit of 50km max on all roads in NZ? And 20km around all houses? Where do your boundaries lie? Don't call people a "bleeding heart victim" just because they choose to question the law. Otherwise I'll call you the same if the law isn't on your side in future.

Jack Miller

12th September 2011, 16:51

I have been murdered twice actually thank god im not dead eh?
If you complain about speeding tickets your just another bleeding heart victim arn't you. Because it couldn't possibly be that you were speeding could it?
If the cop pings you doing 111 km/h your still speeding, its still your fault.

I also rather think i have done the kms to get a ""Bogus"" ticket if such a thing is a regular occurrence. I live in chch and travel via car and soon by motorbike :yes: to katikati up in the north island usually do this twice to three times a year. I also quite frequently travel up to whanagrei where i also have family.
So therefor you arguement is still moot. You got a ticket suck it up stop blaming the popo for doing there job.

Guess you haven't actually read the thread, or even the message you quote. A regular commute plus a few trips the length of the country each year won't get you any where near 6 million kms, even if you live to 100. You'd have to do 1400kms every week for 80 years!

As for blaming the Popo, I'm doing no more than the Popo's own superiors did - he shouldn't have issued the ticket. They dropped the charges.

Brian d marge

12th September 2011, 21:15

Cool discussion.

So, how do we enforce inappropriate speed?

It might not be over the limit, but it might be totally stupid. How do we enforce that?

How do I then convince a judge that it was inappropriate? Worse yet, how do I convince the JPs?

I know it can be done, but the process is a beast, and to be avoided. So it is.

For example, I come across an idiot riding at 70 km/h in a 100km/h zone through fog thicker than a whale omelette. I issue the ticket, coz it's bloody stupid. The ticket would be for careless driving, as it can't be for exceeding the speed limit.

The subject then posts on KB about the gross injustice of getting a ticket for 70 in a 100 km/h area. We all work ourselves into a lather about revenue collecting, and the Popos get hammered yet again. The post rolls out to 17 pages about injustice and how common sense had died.

Then I have to get in front of the JPs and convince them that it really was too fast. And the poor, poor subject prostrates himself on the altar of justice and pleads innocence because he was doing less than the speed limit.

Cool. Yeah, I need that like I need a hole in the head.

So, how do we avert this?
Seeing you wouldn't let me use my oyster knife , aka my last suggestion

how bout this one

Fog , ,,,,,,,idiot going to fast , ,,,,,u issue a ticket for dangerous driving , she , or he says not

you produce ........ drum roll ........... for affect ..........( or is it effect ?) ........ evidence such as a photo , or the weather report for that day

just a thought

now as to speeding

back when I was walking in front of my motoring carriage , with the red flag.... the national speed limits were a touch out of fashion

now in the 21st century , they are still out of whack

the research has all ready been done , the answers ARE known and have been presented here before
so , if the great Circumlocution office in wellington was so fired up about reducing the death rate they would review the road infrastructure and its speed

its in the the too hard basket and the easiest way is just to slap a blanket ban , and fine the arse out of the bad people that do that bad thing called speeding , ( btw hitting a power pole at 99km/h and 104km/h ...I always assumed the result was the same ) anyway....

makes money , easy to implement , great mirth had by all

why change?

Stephen

buggered off , now live in a country less like an Orwellian state , regularly exceed the speed limit , and still fighting fit ...... they dont care if I die ( as they dont pay for the bill) , so they leave me in peace ...all good

Parlane

12th September 2011, 23:24

btw hitting a power pole at 99km/h and 104km/h ...I always assumed the result was the same ) anyway....

To be honest, I'd rather hit the power pole at 104... But if the other object was another car, I'd rather it be 99...

I don't so much care about my own life, but I definitely respect others.

Brian d marge

13th September 2011, 02:58

To be honest, I'd rather hit the power pole at 104... But if the other object was another car, I'd rather it be 99...

I don't so much care about my own life, but I definitely respect others.
I'm sure you can sort it out between you both, you will of course have eternity to conduct your affairs

Stephen

Hamel

13th September 2011, 13:46

"Some people will tell you that slow is good – but I’m here to tell you that fast is better. I’ve always believed this, in spite of the trouble it’s caused me. Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles, Bubba…"
— Hunter S. Thompson (Kingdom of Fear: Loathsome Secrets of a Star-crossed Child in the Final Days of the American Century)

And that is why I ride them.

Jack Miller

12th December 2011, 20:03

A close friend got ticketed passing in a passing lane last week. We'll be getting him off. Updates here as they occur.

Hamel

13th December 2011, 07:27

A close friend got ticketed passing in a passing lane last week. We'll be getting him off. Updates here as they occur.

We? Who is(sic) this we you refer to? I could use some help in a similar vein... Read below. To give you some background, I was stopped doing 11km over the limit just south of Blenheim. I denied I was speeding. The cop told me he had a mobile GPS speed camera which had taken my photo and there was no disputing it.

The letter I read reads:

Informant
New Zealand Police
P O Box 9147
Wellington

01 October, 2011

Re Traffic Infringement Notice Number PVXXXXXX

Dear Sir/Madam

I was advised by the officer who issued the above infringement notice that I was apprehended by a mobile GPS speed camera unit which he had in his car. I disputed the infringement at the time and queried the accuracy of the device. The officer invited me to write in for a copy of the photograph, which identified both my motorcycle, logged my speed at the time of the alleged offence and recorded his own speed, for verification.

I have cause to believe that the officer may have misled me as to the nature of the device by which I was apprehended allegedly exceeding the speed limit, and query whether such a device is an approved vehicle surveillance device.

I would like to request full and complete disclosure with respect to this alleged infringement, including a copy of the photo proving the alleged infringement.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,

etc

I got a letter back saying I had been caught by a HAWK (some info was attached) and that I had admitted to speeding. (I did not!) it was an approved device and the payment date wouldnt change. I was debating going to court over it when a couple of days later the letter saying I had to pay court costs arrived.

So we have a traffic-cop (I wouldnt insult the 'real' Police but calling him a Policeman) who has lied twice. I wonder what else he lied about. My speed perhaps?

Now that I have to pay a court fine, is it worth going the whole er... hog and going to a defended hearing? Normally I wouldnt bother (especially not now as my business was wrecked in the Earthquakes) but I'm so pissed off by the lies this guy has told that I'm very motivated to have my day.

How much more would it cost? Any advice would be appreciated. From the KB public that is.

oneofsix

13th December 2011, 07:32

We? Who is(sic) this we you refer to? I could use some help in a similar vein... Read below. To give you some background, I was stopped doing 11km over the limit just south of Blenheim. I denied I was speeding. The cop told me he had a mobile GPS speed camera which had taken my photo and there was no disputing it.

The letter I read reads:

Informant
New Zealand Police
P O Box 9147
Wellington

01 October, 2011

Re Traffic Infringement Notice Number PVXXXXXX

Dear Sir/Madam

I was advised by the officer who issued the above infringement notice that I was apprehended by a mobile GPS speed camera unit which he had in his car. I disputed the infringement at the time and queried the accuracy of the device. The officer invited me to write in for a copy of the photograph, which identified both my motorcycle, logged my speed at the time of the alleged offence and recorded his own speed, for verification.

I have cause to believe that the officer may have misled me as to the nature of the device by which I was apprehended allegedly exceeding the speed limit, and query whether such a device is an approved vehicle surveillance device.

I would like to request full and complete disclosure with respect to this alleged infringement, including a copy of the photo proving the alleged infringement.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,

etc

I got a letter back saying I had been caught by a HAWK (some info was attached) and that I had admitted to speeding. (I did not!) it was an approved device and the payment date wouldnt change. I was debating going to court over it when a couple of days later the letter saying I had to pay court costs arrived.

So we have a traffic-cop (I wouldnt insult the 'real' Police but calling him a Policeman) who has lied twice. I wonder what else he lied about. My speed perhaps?

Now that I have to pay a court fine, is it worth going the whole er... hog and going to a defended hearing? Normally I wouldnt bother (especially not now as my business was wrecked in the Earthquakes) but I'm so pissed off by the lies this guy has told that I'm very motivated to have my day.

How much more would it cost? Any advice would be appreciated. From the KB public that is.

You will note the letter advising of the court costs etc came from the courts, contact them they will give you the procedure to reverse that bit, think you have to make a declaration or some such.

The Pastor

13th December 2011, 09:54

it will cost your time,

be prepared for multiple court visits (might just be 1, but could be more if they are busy).

if found guilty you will be charged fine + $130 court costs. (unless this has gone up since i was last in court)

If you are found innocent, you wont get anything.

The Pastor

13th December 2011, 09:57

A close friend got ticketed passing in a passing lane last week. We'll be getting him off. Updates here as they occur.

look forward to it

baffa

13th December 2011, 14:04

I kinda wish I was a cop so I could follow Jack Miller around ticketing him for being a douche.

davereid

13th December 2011, 18:25

Now that I have to pay a court fine, is it worth going the whole er... hog and going to a defended hearing? Normally I wouldnt bother (especially not now as my business was wrecked in the Earthquakes) but I'm so pissed off by the lies this guy has told that I'm very motivated to have my day.

Take your lead from the police.

If they beat a man up in the cells on video they plead not guilty.
If they do a u turn in front of a biker they plead not guilty.
If they sexually assault a woman they plead not guilty.

I always plead not guilty too.

100% success rate so far. Your mileage may vary.

Jack Miller

15th December 2011, 08:49

We? Who is(sic) this we you refer to? I could use some help in a similar vein... Read below. To give you some background, I was stopped doing 11km over the limit just south of Blenheim. I denied I was speeding. <snip> Any advice would be appreciated. From the KB public that is.

My real interest is limited to ticketing on passing lanes because I genuinely believe that it is dangerous, promotes bad driving (and Paula Rose agrees with me on this point - at least in the case of identifiable, visible speed cameras) and wastes the taxpayer's investment in passing lanes. You weren't passing so my method and detail aren't entirely applicable. However, if the cop really lied and you definitely denied the charge at the time he deserves some form of punishment and you fighting back is as good as any. These folks are likely to be more use to you than I could:
www.aussiespeedingfines.com

Good Luck,
Jack

Jack Miller

15th December 2011, 08:50

I kinda wish I was a cop so I could follow Jack Miller around ticketing him for being a douche.

They wouldn't have you.

Jack Miller

15th December 2011, 09:04

...be prepared for multiple court visits...

Not necessarily true. Hearings have been scheduled for me and I have received summons to attend. However I always replied to the summons along the lines of: "Please reschedule my hearing to a later date as I have not yet received the essential information I requested from the Police." The Court has always agreed and the Police have never provided the information. More than once I learned that the Police had turned up ready to make their case only to be sent away again by the Court. On one occasion they even dragged along their witness, who must have felt quite vexed.

Good luck,
Jack

phill-k

15th December 2011, 09:23

In reading this thread the thing that saddens me about the lack of real debate on here from those that are into having such rather than all the bullshit replies is the way those such as Arostcrat seem to have no shades of gray, its either black or white, "were you exceeding the speed limit and thus committing an offence or not" where there is clearly legislation as referenced earlier that provides for his circumstances and he clearly demonstrated to the courts that he was on the correct side of the law.

We have one of the finest police forces in the world, some of whom have the task of monitoring and assisting road users to comply with the road code, they issue many many thousands of tickets, surely some of those tickets must be a little questionable, they said officers can not be 100% correct all the time.

In the last month or so I have received 2 speeding infringement notices, the first in nearly 20 yrs, I'm going to comment on both here,

firstly I was clocked at 118km on a three lane section of the northern motorway heading south this was a long incline approximately 2km with the outside lane existing, in the middle lane was an un marked vehicle leading a line of 15 or so cars I was in the "fast lane overtaking these vehicles but had observed a speed camera on the other side of the motorway, quickly there after became aware of a 4x4 in the middle lane towing a trailer full of large sheets of cardboard, the cardboard was not secured into the trailer. I accelerated past the trailer deeming it a risk to my health then slowed, noticing the car at the lead had lights in its rear window, checked my GPS speed and went past them at 105km slowed to 102km as I was in front of them, they pulled in behind me and so I changed lanes at which time they put their lights on. Two officers in the car and as I slowed to a stop pointed vigorously at the 4x4, the passenger acknowledged to me he observed the 4x4 and trailer.

After a discussion I asked to see the observed speed it was as follows: My speed 118kms the police car 94km you be the judge. I don't have time to battle these things and paid the fine.

The serious offence was a speed camera ticket going through Wellsford -^64km in a 50km this one is serious because obviously you have to pass the van and I had not observed such van which means I had dropped my scanning for hazards, that bothers me, I had been down to Ak from Whangarei do a lot of running round and then heading home, obviously I was tired and had dropped my defences. I paid the speed tax.

oneofsix

15th December 2011, 09:38

The serious offence was a speed camera ticket going through Wellsford -^64km in a 50km this one is serious because obviously you have to pass the van and I had not observed such van which means I had dropped my scanning for hazards, that bothers me, I had been down to Ak from Whangarei do a lot of running round and then heading home, obviously I was tired and had dropped my defences. I paid the speed tax.

I don't disagree with you but think you should allow yourself a little grey on the last. They are allowed to hid the vans now and it may not have been parked where you would not observe it as a risk.

Not knowing the full facts and taking you at your word, you look like a trustworthy fellow, it appears the police made a poor judgement call in going after the lesser danger. But that is the nature of judgement calls, it's all in the eye of the beholder, and this is what the court system is meant to be there to smooth out, expect I notice in the guise of cost cutting etc we are in the process of pricing the courts out of the reach of the normal person yet again, bring back transportation to the colonies.

Ocean1

15th December 2011, 10:34

We have one of the finest police forces in the world, some of whom have the task of monitoring and assisting road users to comply with the road code, they issue many many thousands of tickets, surely some of those tickets must be a little questionable, they said officers can not be 100% correct all the time.

I’ve been righteously pinged maybe a dozen times, I’ve accepted the consequences.

I've been to court just once to challenge a traffic fine. It wasn't a biggie, I just though he was wrong and wanted a chance to say what I thought had happened. The officer in question lied, like a sausage in fat, no resemblance to the facts as I knew them to have occurred. I got no actual justice at all, just a bad taste.

Since then I’ve been incorrectly pinged a further two times. Like most others I now see it as just a random tax.

My brother has had the same experience at court, twice.

See it doesn’t matter how fine the force is if our experience of it is seriously unethical in 100% of the cases where we know the actual facts and happen disagree with them.

Somehow I manage to disconnect the cops I know personally from the dishonest ones, but a strike rate like that is indicative of something slightly odious in the state of NZ.

The Pastor

15th December 2011, 10:56

I’ve been righteously pinged maybe a dozen times, I’ve accepted the consequences.

I've been to court just once to challenge a traffic fine. It wasn't a biggie, I just though he was wrong and wanted a chance to say what I thought had happened. The officer in question lied, like a sausage in fat, no resemblance to the facts as I knew them to have occurred. I got no actual justice at all, just a bad taste.

Since then I’ve been incorrectly pinged a further two times. Like most others I now see it as just a random tax.

My brother has had the same experience at court, twice.

See it doesn’t matter how fine the force is if our experience of it is seriously unethical in 100% of the cases where we know the actual facts and happen disagree with them.

Somehow I manage to disconnect the cops I know personally from the dishonest ones, but a strike rate like that is indicative of something slightly odious in the state of NZ.

they will always lie in court

Jack Miller

15th December 2011, 23:03

they will always lie in court

Wonder why we don't see them getting done for perjury very often.

scumdog

16th December 2011, 05:22

they will always lie in court

Wow, I wish somebody had told me that years ago - it would make my job SO much simpler..:rolleyes:

topit

16th December 2011, 05:31

topit

16th December 2011, 06:09

Wow, I wish somebody had told me that years ago - it would make my job SO much simpler..:rolleyes:

Hi Scum dog
saw your name on the list for that new group thats getting started at the moment.
Imay see more of you
:msn-wink:

oneofsix

16th December 2011, 06:32

Wow, I wish somebody had told me that years ago - it would make my job SO much simpler..:rolleyes:

You know I've always been told it is harder to lie than tie the truth. Putting that together with your comment implies it would have made your job easier by knowing the others were doing it too :innocent: :devil2:

The truth as one witness sees it is never the same as the way the other see it. That said I can't say I have been meet with total honesty and interest in getting the fact right by some in the force.

Still to the :Police: that pulled me over this week due to a report of bad behaviour :niceone:, me? bad behaviour on the bike! really? :innocent: Over taking on double yellows inside the yellow but the cager reported me for crossing in to opposing traffic, yeah if I had done that I would be lucky if I was writing this from a hospital bed. Crickey one cager even gave me enough room to pass in the WRB and another gave me half the lane just south of Paraparaumu, also just south of where I was pulled over. He really had to give a fella a break, some people just can't be helped, leaving the wallet in the car and therefore no license on me :doh:
I would love to know what the ute driver that pulled up told them because they dropped dealing to me, he didn't get to complete the license check I don't think, and took off after a cager.
Note to self and others; The silly season is here, people are making plans and reviewing list, tempers are short, stress is high, the weathers damp with glare, be careful and ride safe.

Kickaha

16th December 2011, 17:38

they will always lie in court

Of course no one that's ever been charged for speeding or any other offence would ever do that

SMOKEU

16th December 2011, 17:46

I dont know how many times I hear whingers talking about how unfair they have been treated by the cops and how they didnt deserve a ticket but they saw some other idiot that did. they need to shut up and front up they are that idiot.
What a crock and as far as the highway man wasting court time and some poor innocent witness what a plonker. Grow some nuts and grow up:devil2::devil2:

People who are going at 120kmh in a 100kmh zone on a good, long straight road in good conditions in a well maintained vehicle should not be penalized like the IDIOTS who insist on cruising at 80-90kmh, then speeding up in passing lanes so people can't overtake, then slowing down again. What about those idiots who can't keep in their own lane around corners? They are very rarely caught as it's much harder to bust people who do that than people who exceed speed limits.

I'm assuming by your post that you are one of those idiots.

The Pastor

16th December 2011, 18:34

I'm assuming by your post that you are one of those idiots.

bet he loves donuts and u turns

Kickaha

16th December 2011, 18:47

What about those idiots who can't keep in their own lane around corners? They are very rarely caught as it's much harder to bust people who do that than people who exceed speed limits.
They quite often run campaigns targeting those people
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/140920-Collected-some-revenue-today

rastuscat

16th December 2011, 19:11

Hi All

Just reading the thread, and it's reassuring to see all the same ol' stuff being written. It must be a bugger living in a world of paranioa.

Same old advice coming from me; don't speed, don't get a speeding ticket.

There are so many people speeding, why would anyone go to the trouble of making it up?

Ocean1

16th December 2011, 19:32

Of course no one that's ever been charged for speeding or any other offence would ever do that

Oh, well that clears up a wee misaprehension I've been labouring under for years; I thought I had the criminal behaviour narrowed down to the people on the OTHER side of the dock. Carry on.

There are so many people speeding, why would anyone go to the trouble of making it up?

It's a good question innit?

What's the answer?

Usarka

16th December 2011, 19:35

There are so many people speeding, why would anyone go to the trouble of making it up?

It's a good question innit?

What's the answer?

Why did Hilary climb everest?

scumdog

16th December 2011, 19:46

It must be a bugger living in a world of paranioa.

I'm sure some on KB actually THRIVE on it...

ducatilover

16th December 2011, 19:51

Why did Hilary climb everest?
To get to the top?

unstuck

16th December 2011, 19:55

Why did Hilary climb everest?

To get away from his missus probably.:niceone:

topit

17th December 2011, 05:24

People who are going at 120kmh in a 100kmh zone on a good, long straight road in good conditions in a well maintained vehicle should not be penalized like the IDIOTS who insist on cruising at 80-90kmh, then speeding up in passing lanes so people can't overtake, then slowing down again. What about those idiots who can't keep in their own lane around corners? They are very rarely caught as it's much harder to bust people who do that than people who exceed speed limits.

I'm assuming by your post that you are one of those idiots.

U assuned wrong but it would certainly appear u are

SMOKEU

17th December 2011, 11:16

U assuned wrong but it would certainly appear u are

If you don't want to look like such a muppet then I suggest you learn to fucking spell properly.

rastuscat

17th December 2011, 20:30

If you don't want to look like such a muppet then I suggest you learn to fucking spell properly.

Yeah. Wot 'e sed.

Max Preload

17th December 2011, 21:20

However, if the cop really lied and you definitely denied the charge at the time he deserves some form of punishment and you fighting back is as good as any.It's my firm belief that one of the primary reasons for the absence of cameras in police vehicles is so they can keep lying with impunity.

Max Preload

17th December 2011, 21:28

I don't have time to battle these things and paid the fine.For evil to triumph...

...obviously you have to pass the van and I had not observed such van which means I had dropped my scanning for hazards, that bothers me, I had been down to Ak from Whangarei do a lot of running round and then heading home, obviously I was tired and had dropped my defences. I paid the speed tax.So you failed to notice a speed camera mounted within the confines of an innocuous people mover parked on the side of the road in a township and you somehow feel you must have lowered your standard of observation? It amounts to covert operation of the surveillance device - you simply cannot expect to always see them.

Max Preload

17th December 2011, 21:37

IThey are allowed to hid the vans now...No, policy is they must be operated in an overt manner. However, this overt appears to have been interpreted as hidden inside a vehicle with the vehicle 'overt' (although I'm sure that if a Klingon cloaking device were to fall into their hands all bets would be off).

Max Preload

17th December 2011, 21:39

Why did Hilary climb everest?Nothing on telly?

ducatilover

18th December 2011, 13:13

For evil to triumph...

So you failed to notice a speed camera mounted within the confines of an innocuous people mover parked on the side of the road in a township and you somehow feel you must have lowered your standard of observation? It amounts to covert operation of the surveillance device - you simply cannot expect to always see them.

I think they should have cameras.
Was heading south down National Park a few weekends back with my mate in a '94 Calais and on the cruise control at 105, as always. A cop went by the other way, turned around eventually ('twas quite the delay) and had the hammer down, hard coming up behind us. It was a couple of minutes after him passing before he appeared in the rear view mirror and he had his boot right up it.

Just wanted to check the dusty Calais, all legal etc not a problem, doing sensible speeds and pulled over on a safe verge. He had a bad attitude to boot, I don't meet many like that.
I would love to know how fast he was going though, it was impressive.

Jay GTI

19th December 2011, 12:35

There are so many people speeding, why would anyone go to the trouble of making it up?

Perhaps in some mis-guided attempt to improve the standard of driving in NZ, by any means, some of your brethren are particular to stretching the truth now and then?

I've been lied to by a cop. While listing the various infringements I had committed in the course of him tailing me for 20 minutes (there were a few) he decided to throw in a couple of made-up ones to emphasise just how dangerous I was being. I accepted the ones that were true and called bullshit on the ones that weren't, which he strangely went quiet on. I still wonder if they'd have ended up on the ticket if I'd kept my mouth shut....

rastuscat

19th December 2011, 22:00

I've been lied to by a cop.

I've been lied to by a motorist. Like every 2 hours or so.

For example, I stopped a bloke for using a cellphone. It was a silver flip phone, which I clearly saw as he drove past me. I was on a patrol bike, and had a primo view. When stopped the guy produced a Blackberry, adamant that I couldn't write the ticket due to me having seen something that didn't exist. Ranted and raved, then drove off. I went after him, and locked him up for having driven off. While in custody he was found to have 3 phones on him, including the silver flip phone I had seen. That one went all the way to court, here he lied his face off. The JP found him guilty after I told about having found the 3 phones.

Remember, humans tell porkies. Even those writing on KB.

Spooky, innit.

ducatilover

19th December 2011, 22:46

Remember, humans tell porkies. Even those writing on KB.

No way.
Just no.

Jay GTI

20th December 2011, 07:31

I've been lied to by a motorist. Like every 2 hours or so.

For example, I stopped a bloke for using a cellphone. It was a silver flip phone, which I clearly saw as he drove past me. I was on a patrol bike, and had a primo view. When stopped the guy produced a Blackberry, adamant that I couldn't write the ticket due to me having seen something that didn't exist. Ranted and raved, then drove off. I went after him, and locked him up for having driven off. While in custody he was found to have 3 phones on him, including the silver flip phone I had seen. That one went all the way to court, here he lied his face off. The JP found him guilty after I told about having found the 3 phones.

Remember, humans tell porkies. Even those writing on KB.

Spooky, innit.

I hope that isn't an attempt at justification for a cop lying. Because you've just countered yourself with that one...

You're bang on with that, why would a cop lie when he has no valid reason to? Oh that's right, because he's human, as you've said.

The fact that motorists lie isn't relevant, you asked why a cop would lie. Which you have also just answered, better than I could.

ducatilover

20th December 2011, 11:50

I hope that isn't an attempt at justification for a cop lying. Because you've just countered yourself with that one...

You're bang on with that, why would a cop lie when he has no valid reason to? Oh that's right, because he's human, as you've said.

The fact that motorists lie isn't relevant, you asked why a cop would lie. Which you have also just answered, better than I could.

I take it you don't like cops?

Kiwibaconator

20th December 2011, 16:34

Same old advice coming from me; don't speed, don't get a speeding ticket.

So what advice can you offer for those given a speeding ticket for a speeding offence they didn't commit by officers who can't pinpoint the location where the alleged offence took place? Essentially being pulled over and told you were doing x speed many km back and shown a radar reading for approx 20km/h more than you have done the whole trip?

I have a letter to write tomorrow, any advice you'd like to give would be appreciated and could be constructively used.

Jay GTI

20th December 2011, 18:10

I take it you don't like cops?

Actually no, that isn't my issue. A good friend is a cop and I do like him a lot. What I don't like is cops that think they are somehow above the rest of us, when in truth we are all human, weaknesses and all.

ducatilover

20th December 2011, 18:15

rastuscat

21st December 2011, 20:53

Actually no, that isn't my issue. A good friend is a cop and I do like him a lot. What I don't like is cops that think they are somehow above the rest of us, when in truth we are all human, weaknesses and all.

Yup, no question of that. That's why we have a court as the arbiter of fact.

Thing is, I've been in court and heard a judge decide something that shows that he/she was human too, and prone to error.

As long as there are humans there will be disagreements.

Sorry for agreeing.:weep:

rastuscat

21st December 2011, 21:01

So what advice can you offer for those given a speeding ticket for a speeding offence they didn't commit by officers who can't pinpoint the location where the alleged offence took place? Essentially being pulled over and told you were doing x speed many km back and shown a radar reading for approx 20km/h more than you have done the whole trip?

I have a letter to write tomorrow, any advice you'd like to give would be appreciated and could be constructively used.

Have pondered that. It must be a bastard being accused of something that you don't believe you have done. I've even pondered it when dealing with someone who I have seen actually do the thing they don't believe they have done. I've previously posted a letter on KB from someone adamant that they didn't go through a red light, when I had it on video. Whether you actually did it or not actually doesn't matter, if you believe that you haven't, the sense of injustice must be appalling.

Thing is, it works the other way too. A cop acting in good faith prosecutes someone, then feels aggrieved when the defence raises all the spurious issues in creation.

Fight your corner as best you can, honestly and without malice, then accept whatever decision comes your way. Don't make personal attacks on the cops, as they will only be to your detriment. Best I can do, sorry. :brick:

Kiwibaconator

22nd December 2011, 20:37

Have pondered that. It must be a bastard being accused of something that you don't believe you have done.

Sure is, especially when witnesses back it up.

I've even pondered it when dealing with someone who I have seen actually do the thing they don't believe they have done. I've previously posted a letter on KB from someone adamant that they didn't go through a red light, when I had it on video. Whether you actually did it or not actually doesn't matter, if you believe that you haven't, the sense of injustice must be appalling.

I notice your example is one trying to show that there was no "false positive allegation", only a mistaken customer. Interesting.

Jantar

22nd December 2011, 21:20

Have pondered that. It must be a bastard being accused of something that you don't believe you have done. .....

Fight your corner as best you can, honestly and without malice, then accept whatever decision comes your way. Don't make personal attacks on the cops, as they will only be to your detriment. Best I can do, sorry. :brick:

Rastuscat, this is another example of the Alexandra cops that I have mentioned on other occassions. I know the stretch of road where Kiwibaconator was accused of speeding and I also know that it would be very difficult to exceed the speed limit on many parts of that section. That is why he has asked for the information as to exactly where the offence is supposed to have taken place. So far the cop has not been able to supply that information.

The Alexandra cops are also one reason why I have dual GPS on my bike, one always displaying the speed and one mapping and recording. That system has proved invaluable when stopped with bogus speeding accusations.

I won't claim that I never speed, and I have no hesitation in admitting when its a fair cop, but 3 out of 4 times I've been stopped by local cops in the past 10 years it has been a bogus accusation. One of those I defended successfully, once the cop saw that I had a reording GPS and just got in his car and drove off. Twice I've paid the fine (one deserved and once I had insufficient proof to defend myself).

davereid

23rd December 2011, 19:42

I had a similar experience riding with Ulysses. A rider in front of me was pulled over for speeding, which clearly neither of us was doing. I pulled up to watch proceedings, the cop was annoyed that I was watching. He told me to piss off, or he would charge both of us under the car crushing laws for racing. Instant lose for us, no court, no appeal, just accused = guilty, argue after 28 days and when your wallet empty.

Still, I have been on a jury since then, and when the case essentially came down to policemans word V defendants word it was an easy call for me.

rastuscat

23rd December 2011, 20:44

Interesting. When a rider makes a mistake it's because he/she is human.

When a Popo makes a mistake he/she is corrupt.

Ah well. Guess that'll never change.

rastuscat

23rd December 2011, 20:53

Still, I have been on a jury since then, and when the case essentially came down to policemans word V defendants word it was an easy call for me.

Yeah, heard that quite a lot over the years. I can't say I blame you. That's the point in jurys. If a Popo does something to destroy your faith in the system, who could blame you for not having faith in the system.

I heard that a lot when the MoT was taken over by the Police, that we were jury ****ers. I hear it still, that jurors have a dim view of the Police due to the tickets they have had. No mention of public confidence destroyed by the Arthur Allan Thomas case, the falsely accused David Doherty, the David Bain fiasco, various other shambles. It's all coz we issue tickets. Have a look at Brent Garner on this link, and tell me if he lost his public confidence by writing tickets......http://www.crime.co.nz/c-files.aspx?ID=60

Please also consider that those of us who turn up each day and do an honest days work have been scarred by the actions mentioned, and find it hard to take the virtually constant tirade of abuse.

Still, that never seems to get mentioned.

Jantar

23rd December 2011, 21:13

...
Please also consider that those of us who turn up each day and do an honest days work have been scarred by the actions mentioned, and find it hard to take the virtually constant tirade of abuse.

Still, that never seems to get mentioned.

Oh, it does. The majority on here do respect most of the front line cops. I know I couldn't do your job, and probably many others here couldn't either. However, just like in any other walk in life, there are a few who give a bad name to the rest.

Most of the angst isn't against the guys on the front line, even if a few do deserve it, but we do rant against the policies that came down from the top.

Kiwibaconator

23rd December 2011, 21:14

Interesting. When a rider makes a mistake it's because he/she is human.

When a Popo makes a mistake he/she is corrupt.

Ah well. Guess that'll never change.

Are there problems with some officers or are we talking about simply human mistakes?

Ocean1

23rd December 2011, 21:21

Interesting. When a rider makes a mistake it's because he/she is human.

When a Popo makes a mistake he/she is corrupt.

Ah well. Guess that'll never change.

A mistake? Several here have recounted experiences of cops not simply misapprehending the circumstances but clearly and deliberately fabricating evidence.

You don't have to believe them, (they lost the right to be officially assumed to be innocent until proven guilty without a long dragged out fight some time ago) but for you to infer here that such experiences are either rare or simple, understandable mistakes is disingenuous.

We have one of the least corrupt police forces on the planet. But ask yourself this: What if just half of these experiences have been recounted correctly? Things might need changing, eh?

warewolf

23rd December 2011, 22:09

Remember, humans tell porkies. Even those writing on KB.And remember, cops are human, so they tell us.

warewolf

23rd December 2011, 22:14

Please also consider that those of us who turn up each day and do an honest days work have been scarred by the actions mentioned, and find it hard to take the virtually constant tirade of abuse.Please also consider that those of us who make an effort to drive safely and well have been scarred by the speed persecution mentioned, and find it hard to take a trivial speeding infringement allegedly in the name of "safety".

scumdog

24th December 2011, 06:36

Please also consider that those of us who make an effort to drive safely and well have been scarred by the speed persecution mentioned, and find it hard to take a trivial speeding infringement allegedly in the name of "safety".

Please consider some of us ride/drive in a manner that we spread our ticket reception thinly over a long period of time hence are not scared by the speed persecution mentioned.

And don't give a fat rats arse about what reason the ticket is given out to us, we accept yeah, we shouldn't have been doing that speed...maybe they should drop the 'safety' message and say outright "You speed - we ticke, end of story, bad luck".

Kiwibaconator

24th December 2011, 09:43

Remember, humans tell porkies. Even those writing on KB.

Spooky, innit.

The spooky part is the attitude that anyone pleading not guilty is telling porkies.

Doppler speed measurement is fraught with issues, these issues need to be understood by the staff using these devices to minimise the false positives. Another significant issue is no time or location stamp on the readings.

davereid

24th December 2011, 09:45

Yeah, heard that quite a lot over the years. I can't say I blame you. That's the point in jurys. If a Popo does something to destroy your faith in the system, who could blame you for not having faith in the system....Please also consider that those of us who turn up each day and do an honest days work have been scarred by the actions mentioned, and find it hard to take the virtually constant tirade of abuse. Still, that never seems to get mentioned.

Right now Im reading the paper. Its headlines include a 5 year old child attacked in a Turangi Motorcamp, but thats just the tip of the iceberg.

I would hate that case to collapse because a jury member wanted to punish the police for his speeding tickets.

But the days when a policemans word can automatically be relied on are gone as well.

ital916

24th December 2011, 09:53

Right now Im reading the paper. Its headlines include a 5 year old child attacked in a Turangi Motorcamp, but thats just the tip of the iceberg.

I would hate that case to collapse because a jury member wanted to punish the police for his speeding tickets.

But the days when a policemans word can automatically be relied on are gone as well.

Actually, the amount of corruption in modern day western police forces is probably a hell of a lot lower than police forces from decades past. Anyone here want the police force of the 50's....I don't thanks. :)

rastuscat

24th December 2011, 10:45

Actually, the amount of corruption in modern day western police forces is probably a hell of a lot lower than police forces from decades past. Anyone here want the police force of the 50's....I don't thanks. :)

Have a look at a programme called Life on Mars. A 21st century british cop woke up one day and found himself in the 1970s. He can't believe the staggering difference between then and now. In one episode a 70s cop got a confession by battering a suspect with a phone book. Everyone else seemed to think it was routine.

Go back to the old days if you want, but remember that the old days weren't always that good.

actungbaby

24th December 2011, 11:54

I got ticket in my mx5 doing 120kph passing this dude in falcon who speeded up dick.. and said to afficer i was over taking
still he said u shoudint go over the limit thats daft how can u overtake and not go over 100kph and do it safe
esp in shorter distance , and why do have passing lanes up hills all the time i undersand its for passing trucks
because the weight slow ;-(
Anyways i did little spin up on gravel when i left just say yeah right officer i cant drive ;-(

Anyway Have safe christmas new year and enjoyable one too

A close friend got ticketed passing in a passing lane last week. We'll be getting him off. Updates here as they occur.

Oblivion

24th December 2011, 12:08

Actually, the amount of corruption in modern day western police forces is probably a hell of a lot lower than police forces from decades past. Anyone here want the police force of the 50's....I don't thanks. :)

If it can teach the tweens that think that having their pants round their ankles is somewhat cool, and think that its funny to call people hoes and bitches, a lesson, then I think that a "little" 50's police brutality would do a bit of good.

That and he couldn't catch up to my bike :sweatdrop

Ocean1

24th December 2011, 12:15

Have a look at a programme called Life on Mars. A 21st century british cop woke up one day and found himself in the 1970s. He can't believe the staggering difference between then and now. In one episode a 70s cop got a confession by battering a suspect with a phone book. Everyone else seemed to think it was routine.

Go back to the old days if you want, but remember that the old days weren't always that good.

You do know it's fiction, dude, eh?

One thing about the old days; a genuinely bad cop didn't last long in a small community. In the cities then, as now they've got the advantage of herd protection and the lack of community you find in high population densities.

It's must be a bastard failing to get a conviction when you know it's kosher, but telling porkies to make up for bad luck or poor police work in the age of smart-phones and GPS is plain dumb. Telling porkies when you know it ain't kosher isn't just dumb, it's criminal.