No Offence Intended

[Viking01]

A little bird sent me the following link. A few might find the spreadsheet
at the bottom of the link to be of interest:

http://www.police.govt.nz/about-us/publication/road-policing-driver-offence-data-january-2009-march-2018

[Mike.Gayner]

Jesus that data is a mess. I'm going to spend some time reformatting it and make it a bit more useful.

[EJK]

Jesus that data is a mess. I'm going to spend some time reformatting it and make it a bit more useful.

I agree on that. They seriously need a BI Analyst.

[Mike.Gayner]

If anyone wants the data in a more useful format, here it is, flattened. I don't have time to spend any more of my day on it, so this only includes the number of offences, not the dollar values. I also haven't included fixed speed cameras because this data isn't consistent with the rest.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/17hjy5JDdMElmcO_I8hD9oYGaFs3Zp8Ga/view?usp=sharing

Pretty fucking irritating, though entirely predictable, to see just how disproportionately speed is used as enforcement on the roads. But it's easy, and NZ Police generally look for the easy way to do things, so this is to be expected.

337240

edit: Just realised that chart isn't correctly chronological, oops!

337241

[Mike.Gayner]

This obsession by the NZ Police with speed makes me cringe so hard. The number of tickets issued for mobile phones, running red lights and even alcohol/drugs are insignificant compared with speed. Just ridiculous.

337242

[rastuscat]

Jesus that data is a mess. I'm going to spend some time reformatting it and make it a bit more useful.

It's a lot of information, but it's valuable. It says a lot about Police priorities.

If you have the time to trawl it, and the background knowledge to understand it, it tells an interesting tale.

[SVboy]

It's a lot of information, but it's valuable. It says a lot about Police priorities.

If you have the time to trawl it, and the background knowledge to understand it, it tells an interesting tale.

I dont have the skills, I dont have the time. However if you could enlighten us perhaps.....?

[rastuscat]

I dont have the skills, I dont have the time. However if you could enlighten us perhaps.....?

Mike is nailing it, I'll leave it to him.

I was interested in the data from Chch Central as it related to the set up and shut down of various sections in the traffic unit. Makes for interesting tracking.

[rastuscat]

If anyone wants the data in a more useful format, here it is, flattened. I don't have time to spend any more of my day on it, so this only includes the number of offences, not the dollar values.

The dollar values are for salacious interest only.

[Mike.Gayner]

Tidied up and flattened the data and included fixed speed cameras, file is available here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LzxHAD2u_liRvBOfFvriZ_GVBA4NwPny/view?usp=sharing

I agree that dollar values aren't particularly useful for this type of analysis.

[Scuba_Steve]

This obsession by the NZ Police with speed makes me cringe so hard. The number of tickets issued for mobile phones, running red lights and even alcohol/drugs are insignificant compared with speed. Just ridiculous.


Especially when considered very few deaths are caused by "speeding"

[Voltaire]

Quick look at Mikes Data:

Some things leap out of the screen.

Alcohol-Canterbury OMG.

Drugs- Canterbury

Red lights- Auckland ( no surprises there)

Seatbelts- probably too drugged up and pissed to care. Canterbury

Speed Cameras- Auckland and Welly

Mobile Speed Camera- Westies and Shoreites.

Officer Speed- Waikato drivers are mooving.

Officer Speed- Westys

Mobile phones- Canterbury and Auckland, Westies being able to do it on the motorway.

Some of the data is very consistently same provinces.

Most values is interesting as a speed camera is going to pick up hundreds of vehicles 24/7 where as Drugs and Alcohol numbers are probably over a smaller time frame of weekends/nights and targeted.

[Mike.Gayner]

Here's a quick chart suite which includes fixed and mobile cameras.

337243

337244

337245

337246

337247

[Mike.Gayner]

My take-aways from all this:


Police talk a big game about alcohol, but enforcement goes into the too-hard basket.
Either no one in this country is driving under the influence or drugs, or the police don't care. Either way, the probability of being stopped for it is near-zero.
Speed is overwhelmingly over-enforced compared with other dangerous activities.
Outside of speeding, you're more likely to be fined by causing a danger to yourself (seatbelts) than by causing a danger to others (mobile phones, running reds, drugs/alcohol).
I really don't see any good news spin at all in this data. It really does show how insanely myopic NZ police have become (or have always been).



337249

337250

[rastuscat]

My take-aways from all this:


Police talk a big game about alcohol, but enforcement goes into the too-hard basket.
Either no one in this country is driving under the influence or drugs, or the police don't care. Either way, the probability of being stopped for it is near-zero.
Speed is overwhelmingly over-enforced compared with other dangerous activities.
Outside of speeding, you're more likely to be fined by causing a danger to yourself (seatbelts) than by causing a danger to others (mobile phones, running reds, drugs/alcohol).
I really don't see any good news spin at all in this data. It really does show how insanely myopic NZ police have become (or have always been).



337249

337250

In regard to alcohol, the charges are mostly dealt with by summons, not infringement.

I think the figures are only infringements.

[Mike.Gayner]

In regard to alcohol, the charges are mostly dealt with by summons, not infringement.

I think the figures are only infringements.

I'm not sure if that's correct or not, I'm having a hard time finding data to support this. The NZ Police website says:
"Includes all offences relating to driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs (including offences committed by drivers aged under 20 who breach the zero breath and blood alcohol limit, and those under the new lowered adult alcohol impairment limit, introduced on 1 December 2014)."

edit: In fact I believe the data is all-inclusive. Dividing the total fine amount for alcohol offences by the number of offences gives an average value around $50 for most periods, indicating that most of the offences aren't fined through an infringement and are in fact referred to court. The NZ Police website says this:


Fines data
Includes monetary amounts in $NZD associated with the above listed offences where Police has issued an infringement notice that was processed in the Police infringement processing system at face value - the fees associated with these notices can be paid, unpaid or referred to court (bottom tables).

[rastuscat]

I'm not sure if that's correct or not, I'm having a hard time finding data to support this. The NZ Police website says:
"Includes all offences relating to driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs (including offences committed by drivers aged under 20 who breach the zero breath and blood alcohol limit, and those under the new lowered adult alcohol impairment limit, introduced on 1 December 2014)."

edit: In fact I believe the data is all-inclusive. Dividing the total fine amount for alcohol offences by the number of offences gives an average value around $50 for most periods, indicating that most of the offences aren't fined through an infringement and are in fact referred to court. The NZ Police website says this:

There were no alcohol infringements until Dec 2014. Before that all offences went to court. When the mew lower limit was introduced, 250-400 became an infringement, above 400 went to court.

Hey, I'm on your side here.

[jellywrestler]

It's a lot of information, but it's valuable. It says a lot about Police priorities.

If you have the time to trawl it, and the background knowledge to understand it, it tells an interesting tale.

that's quite different to your take on the proportion of tickets issued for speed and other offences.
and, quite simply, this looks like 'police are targeting' offences rather than lets get on the raod and ticket all offences.

[rastuscat]

that's quite different to your take on the proportion of tickets issued for speed and other offences.
and, quite simply, this looks like 'police are targeting' offences rather than lets get on the raod and ticket all offences.

20 cops wrote no speed tickets, and just stuck to red lights, cellphones etc. 200 other cops wrote nothing but speed.

Then everyone stood back and bagged the Police for focussing too much on speed.

Leaving the 20 to wonder why they bothered.

The end.

[Mike.Gayner]

Leaving the 20 to wonder why they bothered.

They can wonder whatever the fuck they want, individual police are paid to do a job. Either the NZ Police are failing to prioritise at a strategic level, or individual police are unaccountable for failing to follow organisational strategy.

The statistics show a frustratingly myopic view on road safety, focussing almost entirely on speed, despite hearing CONSTANTLY from the public that we're more interested in red light enforcement, booze etc. The police are taking the easy road and there is obviously either a complete lack of direction, or NZ Police are unable to find the right people to fulfil their ranks.

[rastuscat]

They can wonder whatever the fuck they want, individual police are paid to do a job. Either the NZ Police are failing to prioritise at a strategic level, or individual police are unaccountable for failing to follow organisational strategy.

As was the issue with the Nazis in WW2.



The statistics show a frustratingly myopic view on road safety, focussing almost entirely on speed, despite hearing CONSTANTLY from the public that we're more interested in red light enforcement, booze etc.

I almost agree with you on this comment. But as I've previously mentioned, the figures you have presented fail to account for the time spent preventing things. All the hours spent randomly stopping cars looking for EBAs. All the hours freezing your bits off on Booze Bus checkpoints. The figures you quote don't mention a range of other activities Police undertake.



The police are taking the easy road and there is obviously either a complete lack of direction, or NZ Police are unable to find the right people to fulfil their ranks.

A combination of both, probably.

[Voltaire]

More stats albeit via the herald

3.5% of motorway traffic on the phone.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12068078

They need to up the fines, although $150 for using a bus lane doesn't seem to work...7 million is a good income stream.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12057697

[SaferRides]

The Waikato police had a blitz on cellphone use and seatbelt wearing last week. And to be fair, I see very little speed enforcement in Auckland, although that's probably a pointless exercise now!

[rastuscat]

They can wonder whatever the fuck they want, individual police are paid to do a job. Either the NZ Police are failing to prioritise at a strategic level, or individual police are unaccountable for failing to follow organisational strategy.

The statistics show a frustratingly myopic view on road safety, focussing almost entirely on speed, despite hearing CONSTANTLY from the public that we're more interested in red light enforcement, booze etc. The police are taking the easy road and there is obviously either a complete lack of direction, or NZ Police are unable to find the right people to fulfil their ranks.


More stats albeit via the herald

3.5% of motorway traffic on the phone.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12068078

They need to up the fines, although $150 for using a bus lane doesn't seem to work...7 million is a good income stream.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12057697



The fine/demerit system is seriously lacking in relevance. No demerits for red light or seatbelts. $80 for a cellphone ticket. Demerits for not licensing your vehicle.

Can't see much sense in these things.

[Swoop]

More stats albeit via the herald


https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12068078

The important point quoted from that article is: "Only 15 per cent of the road toll involves speed".
Therefore according to the charts above, there is a problem in the enforcement methodology when applied to "road safety".

[rastuscat]

The important point quoted from that article is: "Only 15 per cent of the road toll involves speed".
Therefore according to the charts above, there is a problem in the enforcement methodology when applied to "road safety".

That 15% relates to speed as a causitive factor. In 15% of crashes speed was identified as a causitive factor.

In the 85% where speed was not identified as a causitive factor, speed was a determinant factor in the severity of the collision.

Summarised as "the faster you go the bigger the mess".

[Scuba_Steve]

That 15% relates to speed as a causitive factor. In 15% of crashes speed was identified as a causitive factor.

In the 85% where speed was not identified as a causitive factor, speed was a determinant factor in the severity of the collision.

Summarised as "the faster you go the bigger the mess".

Even so that 15% was "speed" & not "speeding" which is an even lower % (& I know you know the diff just as well as I)
they don't like quoting "speeding" figures as it really makes the scam visible for what it is

Personally I don't have a prob with talking on the phone (but not that stupid hold it in front of you thing people seem to be doing), not wearing seatbelts, or "speeding" (within reason)
talking on the phone to your ear is safer than handsfree & much safer than peoples attempt to hide use. txting can be banned still
seat-belts, other than children is personal safety & so I couldn't give a shit if you want to injure or kill yourself
"speeding" as long as it's not excessive is much safer than the speed scam system we have, makes the roads safer & faster.

[Voltaire]

The important point quoted from that article is: "Only 15 per cent of the road toll involves speed".
Therefore according to the charts above, there is a problem in the enforcement methodology when applied to "road safety".

Good to see you quote the experts on Road Safety :msn-wink:

Road safety analyst Clive Matthew-Wilson said using mobile phones now caused more road deaths than speeding.
"Only 15 per cent of the road toll involves speed [only]. American studies show 28 per cent of road deaths involve cellphones, so it is a far greater risk," he said.

How can I get a job stating the bloody obvious....people can't even walk across the road without being glued to their phones.


https://resources.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/3/r/a/9/h/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.620x349. 1d50jy.png/1469606942765.jpg

[rastuscat]

Even so that 15% was "speed" & not "speeding" which is an even lower % (& I know you know the diff just as well as I)
they don't like quoting "speeding" figures as it really makes the scam visible for what it is

Personally I don't have a prob with talking on the phone (but not that stupid hold it in front of you thing people seem to be doing), not wearing seatbelts, or "speeding" (within reason)
talking on the phone to your ear is safer than handsfree & much safer than peoples attempt to hide use. txting can be banned still
seat-belts, other than children is personal safety & so I couldn't give a shit if you want to injure or kill yourself
"speeding" as long as it's not excessive is much safer than the speed scam system we have, makes the roads safer & faster.

The research on phone use shows that hands free is just as bad as holding it.

[Autech]

Summarised as "the faster you go the bigger the mess".

My brother always used to say "The faster you go the more time they have to clean up the mess" :D.

I think that unless the car/bike fails to make a corner due to high speed and goes off the road/into another car or gets pulled out on by someone that didn't see they coming due to their extreme speed then speed is the main factor. The fact that we travel at any speed makes it always a factor though.

One of the great ironies is "If they were going slower they could have stopped in time". Which when you map out speed over distance makes little sense, if they were going slower they would not have been in that very location to have a car pull out on them. Also is true if they were going faster they may not have been there either. Of course you are better off if you are going to have a prang going slower, but by going slower you may end up in a location where a truck decides to cross the centre line and squish you.
To sum up if it's your time it's your time.

I see far more dangerous driving most of the time from people doing under the speed limit than those that go a bit faster, or bang-on as in my case. Unfortunately Policing that is so much harder as unless the cop sees them do the evil dead with their own eyes they aren't able to ticket as easily as getting someone with a radar gun. Case and point was when I went in and complained about a lunatic that overtook on hill, double yellow into an oncoming car and nearly caused a head on if it weren't for me n the other cars reaction.
Police looked him up, said yup he's local, will go hit him up. They said do you want him done, I said yup dude deserves to lose his license. Waited, waited, called up got told cop was on leave will get back to me soon. Waited some more. Been a year now... Either there is not enough Cops or they just don't care about properly dangerous drivers.

[rastuscat]

My brother always used to say "The faster you go the more time they have to clean up the mess" :D.

I think that unless the car/bike fails to make a corner due to high speed and goes off the road/into another car or gets pulled out on by someone that didn't see they coming due to their extreme speed then speed is the main factor. The fact that we travel at any speed makes it always a factor though.

One of the great ironies is "If they were going slower they could have stopped in time". Which when you map out speed over distance makes little sense, if they were going slower they would not have been in that very location to have a car pull out on them. Also is true if they were going faster they may not have been there either. Of course you are better off if you are going to have a prang going slower, but by going slower you may end up in a location where a truck decides to cross the centre line and squish you.
To sum up if it's your time it's your time.

I see far more dangerous driving most of the time from people doing under the speed limit than those that go a bit faster, or bang-on as in my case. Unfortunately Policing that is so much harder as unless the cop sees them do the evil dead with their own eyes they aren't able to ticket as easily as getting someone with a radar gun. Case and point was when I went in and complained about a lunatic that overtook on hill, double yellow into an oncoming car and nearly caused a head on if it weren't for me n the other cars reaction.
Police looked him up, said yup he's local, will go hit him up. They said do you want him done, I said yup dude deserves to lose his license. Waited, waited, called up got told cop was on leave will get back to me soon. Waited some more. Been a year now... Either there is not enough Cops or they just don't care about properly dangerous drivers.

Each day in a cops life there's a new batch of issues to deal with. Each new batch makes yesterdays batch harder to get to.

I would have expected better too. It's unfortunate that this one got away.

[Autech]

Each day in a cops life there's a new batch of issues to deal with. Each new batch makes yesterdays batch harder to get to.

I would have expected better too. It's unfortunate that this one got away.

Pretty much what I put it down too. Though from a public perception perspective its very bad for them to go on about road safety but not do much about it when prompted as I have seen on more than one occasion.

It's a losing battle I think, everyone's got their hands out asking for more money, differently governments promise this and that but instead throw the money at the stuff that will get them votes ("free" tertiary education springs to mind), which more Police or better pay for nurses probably wont help on the wide scale for gaining lots of votes.

[Swoop]

That 15% relates to speed ...
In the 85% where speed was not identified as a causitive factor, speed was a determinant factor...

So, speed = 100% of accidents and relentless pursuit will be inflicted on the population by the :Police:.

:msn-wink:

[Scuba_Steve]

The research on phone use shows that hands free is just as bad as holding it.

The ones I've seen suggest it's worse than holding it as (in the real world) on handsfree your brain has to do a lot of noise cancelling which obviously takes some of it's CPU power

[R650R]

It's a lot of information, but it's valuable. It says a lot about Police priorities.

If you have the time to trawl it, and the background knowledge to understand it, it tells an interesting tale.

If We're all honest and look objectively it fits reality. Eg most if not all of us speed or break speed limits often, we just don't get caught often but its prob the offence most people commit most often and therefore will always be orders of magnitude ahead on real enforcement.
Most of us if we're honest prob less frequently than we speed occasionally take a cell call, forget seatbelt briefly, make bad call on red light phase, have one to many at pub..... but because it's not very often then not very many will be ticketed.

Surprised the phone camera experiment only showed 3% infringement rate, but then compared to the time duration the offence lasts versus the journey time and chance of apprehension I think the offending rate must be much higher.
Eg drunk drivers are always about 1.5%-2% at any checkpoint but the offending occurs during 100% of journey time so easier detection.
I've been back on truck driving duties last couple weeks and seat of the pants observation is that way more than 3% are cellphone driving.... what's really disturbing is I'm seeing about 5 people a night with no lights on during a max of 200km urban driving!!!!

[R650R]

Of course you are better off if you are going to have a prang going slower, but by going slower you may end up in a location where a truck decides to cross the centre line and squish you.
To sum up if it's your time it's your time.



Do you understand the concept of going slower also gives you a chance to take evasive action. Also not every road user has Rossi level depth and speed perception. We all speed from time to time, if you can't admit/realise the extra element of danger and risk, along with the impact of it on other road users decisions then your doomed to be a statistic. By all means feel free to speed but accept and think of the risks to mitigate the higher hazard level.

[jellywrestler]

20 cops wrote no speed tickets, and just stuck to red lights, cellphones etc. 200 other cops wrote nothing but speed.

Then everyone stood back and bagged the Police for focussing too much on speed.

Leaving the 20 to wonder why they bothered.

The end.

you've answered it in a nutshell, they only focus on offences that are easy to deal with, what about all the poor driving, careless driving, following too close etc? they simply don't want to be chjallenged and have to waste their time in court i reckon.
simple, cameras in every car, ticket issued then with video evidence it's not the coppers problem to administer, but, they're too fucking scared of having their life recorded i reckon.

[jellywrestler]

causitive
can't wait for my next scrabble night....

[rastuscat]

can't wait for my next scrabble night....

What an interesting life you have.

Try discombobulation.

[GazzaH]

Nah, "UNZIPPERINGS", systematically assembled with triple word scores etc. over several goes.

Never forgave my old man for that one ... during the UK coal miners' strike and power cuts of the 1970s.

Many, many babies were conceived around that time.

[Mike.Gayner]

Interesting story in the paper today:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/104666411/drugimpaired-drivers-now-involved-in-more-fatal-crashes-than-drinkdrivers

So despite the fact that drugs are now responsible for more fatalities than alcohol, there is still virtually no enforcement of drugs impairment while driving (it's such a tiny sliver in this chart you can't even see it).

337278

Once again, police take the easy route, continue focusing on speed, no plans to change.

[EJK]

Interesting story in the paper today:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/104666411/drugimpaired-drivers-now-involved-in-more-fatal-crashes-than-drinkdrivers

So despite the fact that drugs are now responsible for more fatalities than alcohol, there is still virtually no enforcement of drugs impairment while driving (it's such a tiny sliver in this chart you can't even see it).

337278

Once again, police take the easy route, continue focusing on speed, no plans to change.

Look, why don't you just apply for a job at NZ Police? Clearly you are so genius you have figured it all out.

[Swoop]

Look, why don't you just apply for a job at NZ Police? Clearly you are so genius you have figured it all out.

Actually he is doing what journalists "should do", which is gathering information and providing it for the wider community to consider.

Sadly "journalists" then step over the line and ram their opinions & personal bias down the throat of the public in a manner that Linda Lovelace would struggle to cope with.

[Viking01]

Interesting story in the paper today:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/104666411/drugimpaired-drivers-now-involved-in-more-fatal-crashes-than-drinkdrivers

So despite the fact that drugs are now responsible for more fatalities than alcohol, there is still virtually no enforcement of drugs impairment while driving (it's such a tiny sliver in this chart you can't even see it).

337278

Once again, police take the easy route, continue focusing on speed, no plans to change.


Just to reply on the drugged driving point alone:

I'm not quite sure how you actually envisaged Police officers enforcing drugged
driving to a greater extent.

1. Random Stopping

If I understand it correctly, there are restrictions under the Human Rights Act
(or Bill of Rights) that legislate against a person being "unlawfully detained or
arrested". The lawyers on KB will be able to comment much better than I.

I'm sure a few adverse court case decisions (stopping people without due cause)
would make Police cautious.

2. Organised Stopping

I don't know whether current legislation grants Police the right to subject a driver
to an impairment test when their vehicle is captured via a roadside (booze bus) stop.
Specifically if the driver showed no signs of impairment while driving.

The conditions under which we allow ourselves to be subjected to a roadside stop and a
5 second breath alcohol test (under the above scenario) should perhaps not be assumed
to apply automatically to drugged driving as well.

leaving ....

3. Random Sighting

Which effectively leaves it down to an officer actually sighting a driver "operating their
vehicle in a visibly unsafe manner", stopping them, and then subjecting them to an alcohol
breath test and / or a roadside impairment test.

If:
- the number of Police vehicles on the road at any time is relatively low ;
- the Police officer is not necessarily travelling in the same direction ; and
- the time period over which an officer might need to watch a driver (in order to judge
that the driver might be impaired) is long,

then unless the driver does an unsafe manoeuvre right in front, I'd wager the chance of
a roadside stop - due to suspected drugged driving - is then quite low.

Just my thoughts.

[Mike.Gayner]

It's about an allocation of resources - police (as an organisation) have made the conscious decision to focus virtually all of their resources on speed. They could easily reallocate some of those resources to the things people WANT to be policed - alcohol, drugs, red lights, phones etc. But it's harder to prove results, so as usual a government body has taken the easy route.

There is nothing in the BOR or any other act of parliament stopping police from doing random stops - they do it every single day.

[Mike.Gayner]

Look, why don't you just apply for a job at NZ Police? Clearly you are so genius you have figured it all out.

I prefer not to make my living sucking on the government tit - I've worked with government organisations before, and it's not my cup of tea.

[Autech]

Do you understand the concept of going slower also gives you a chance to take evasive action. Also not every road user has Rossi level depth and speed perception. We all speed from time to time, if you can't admit/realise the extra element of danger and risk, along with the impact of it on other road users decisions then your doomed to be a statistic. By all means feel free to speed but accept and think of the risks to mitigate the higher hazard level.You do get the point I was trying to make though about where you are at a given point in time is dicatated by the speed you go?
So therefore theoretically if a truck crashed across the centre line at point A at precisely 7:44.05AM and you get squished, if for example you had been going 10kmph faster for say, 10 seconds at some stage in your journey you would not have been in that precise place and time to get squished, it would have happened to the poor bastard behind you as if my maths is correct you would be 30 metres further up the road.
Ditto if you had been going 10kms slower. You can't predict what will happen so your logic is true, slower is better if shit goes tits up

Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk

[EJK]

Actually he is doing what journalists "should do", which is gathering information and providing it for the wider community to consider.

Sadly "journalists" then step over the line and ram their opinions & personal bias down the throat of the public in a manner that Linda Lovelace would struggle to cope with.

Perhaps. But it doesn't help with his royal Mike Gay-ness attitude calling NZ Police, who are like any of us working professionals, "fucking idiots and civil parasites."

Data is one thing, he is translating data in a way only to justify his own personal opinion to point fingers at the police for "not doing their job".

I believe NZ police deserve more respect than some comments from a keyboard warrior.

[Viking01]

There is nothing in the BOR or any other act of parliament stopping police from doing random stops - they do it every single day.

I'd still disagree with you on your last point - regarding the Bill of Rights Act.

It's true that officers of various Crown organisations (including Police) do have
powers to stop an individual, but :

- being stopped and detained must be for a "clearly identified reason"; and
- it must be subject to the powers granted to the officer under the relevant Act.

BORA sections 21 and 24 relate to "unreasonable search and seizure":

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM224792.html

(where being "stopped and detained" would fall under "seizure").

There is obviously a range of specific conditions under which "stopping of a citizen
going about their normal daily business" is permitted.

Organisations such as Citizens Advice and NORML offer advice relating to "search
and seizure" for quite a variety of scenarios (including driving) e.g.

http://www.cab.org.nz/vat/gl/roi/Pages/Searchwarrants.aspx#6

https://norml.org.nz/rights/

So while Police no doubt do perform "random stops" every day, we'll have to trust
that they do so within the bounds of their delegated power.





[ We won't talk about Nicky Hager ]

[SaferRides]

Interesting story in the paper today:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/104666411/drugimpaired-drivers-now-involved-in-more-fatal-crashes-than-drinkdrivers

So despite the fact that drugs are now responsible for more fatalities than alcohol, there is still virtually no enforcement of drugs impairment while driving (it's such a tiny sliver in this chart you can't even see it).

337278

Once again, police take the easy route, continue focusing on speed, no plans to change.
Actually, the previous government decided against saliva testing for drugs after it was proposed by the police.

All too typical of the Key government unfortunately.

[Viking01]

Actually, the previous government decided against saliva testing for drugs after it was proposed by the police.

All too typical of the Key government unfortunately.

Might have been due to some consideration of:

- the maturity of saliva screening (for drugs excluding cannabis or MDMA / amphetamine)
- the likely cost of such test kits
- the length of time that a driver might be "detained" (in order for the test to complete)
- the lack of supporting legislation within NZ

Just saying.

[SaferRides]

The Aussies manage to do it. But even from watching RBT occasionally, they seem to have problems with testing for THC.

[F5 Dave]

I'm glad you brought this drugs thing up.
So reading the beat up in Stuffup the question occurred;
Being that some drugs show for a month, are these people actually impaired or just tested positive for the drug?

I'm not a stoner even slightly but we should always be honest with the truth.

Furthermore I wonder how long one stays impaired from a night on the turps? So after a late bender the morning after you might blow over limit. But being that it is the brains release of chemicals once encountering alcohol not the alcohol itself. So is the impairment equivalent to the breath measurement after many hours of the effect? I don't know the answer to that question.
While fatigue and lack of sleep are very bad things is the reading one might blow fully relevant?

[rastuscat]

There has always been a method to prosecute impaired drivers.

It was under the Transport Act 1962 Section 58(1)(e). A driver could be prosecuted if driving in such a state as to be incapable of proper control of a vehicle. Typical examples were when a driver fell out of a car when a traffic cop opened the drivers door. It was evidence given by an officer who had at least a few years of experience and was in a position to qualify themself to the court, or a doctor. Basically, if it was practical, you'd get them back and have the doctor certify then as incapable. Interstingly, this often included similar tests to today's system, but more on that later.

Our legislation changed when th Transport Act was substituted with the Land Transport Act, but the offences basically remained the same.

When Strines introduced their saliva tests, NZ stood back and watched. A short time later, some poor beggar over there was prosecuted on a drug drive saliva test, and the authorities were forced to accept it had been a false positive. he was paid a gazillion dollars in compensation. We laughed, and it justified our stance on saliva tests.

At around the same time we started doing a thing called a Field Impairment Test. A company from the UK came over and trained a few of us how to do those walk the line, eye test sort of tests. I learned what horizontal gaze nystagmus was. But it was voluntary. If I had good cause to suspect comsumption of drugs prior to driving I could request a driver to undergo a Field Impairment Test, or FIT. If they failed, they were prosecuted under the old Driving While Incapable law. Very, very few cops were trained, and even fewer felt confident to use the 7 stage tests. Walk and Turn, Walk The Line, HGN and VGN tests. Basically, a series of divided attention tasks, which made the driver look embarressed and displayed impairment like a wart on a witches nose.

Then it all changed. A new law was introduced, where a driver could be charged with Driving While Incapable where they displayed impairment as ascertained by a Compulsory Impairment Test, AND HAD DRUGS IN THEIR BLOOD. A CIT was a paired down version of the FIT, all validated, and actually quite good if conducted confidently and with knowledge. I was trained as an instructor, and sent out to train my fellow gendarmes to conduct CIT testing.

Not many of these tests are done, as again, the Police tried to roll out training in a manner that left most cops lacking confidence to do the Compulsory Impairment Test. It felt like black magic, despite the fact that each of the stages in the CIT had been scientifically validated. And there was a backup, being that someone with no drugs in their blood could be prosecuted, even if the cop deigned that they were impaired.

To be fair, very few cops ever ruled that a person was impaired if they weren't, as the cop knew that it was a waste of a big stack of dosh to test the blood if no drugs were present.

And that's the key to it. Impairment. Having drugs in your blood doesn't necessarily mean that you are impaired. If you smoked a joint last weekend, there would still be something to show that in your blood, or saliva, but you would likely no longer be impaired. Remember impairment as determined by a CIT, and only then could a blood sample be taken, which had to show drugs for a Driving While Impaired charge to be laid.

Basically, it's a rigmarole, leading to not many prosecutions for that offence. In addition, the process is to stop a driver, and if they fail an alcohol breath test, they go down the alcohol route, even if they stink of dope and claim to be the local king of dak.

So, it's been a few years since saliva testing has been running in our test programme (Oztralia), and I reckon they'll be heading down that track here. Remember, I've been out for 3 years now, and change happens. Stuff I don't know about.

One point to note. It's not tasty to set a limit (like an alcohol limit) for an illegal drug. You could, like zero, but that would effectively be a prosecution for a drug offence, not a driving offence. It's possible to have drug evidence in your saliva and blood and have no impairment. In a time where decriminalisation of cannabis is a cause du jour, that won't fly.

The only people who can be prosecuted without much due process is those in hospital arising from a crash where their blood, compulsorily obtained, is found to contain a Class A drug. Cannabis is Class C.

Still, I'm sure the problem can easily be solved by a few keyboard warriors venting about how easy it would be to fix the problem.

[rastuscat]

I'm glad you brought this drugs thing up.
So reading the beat up in Stuffup the question occurred;
Being that some drugs show for a month, are these people actually impaired or just tested positive for the drug?

Per my other post, that's the key. The presence of drugs does not mean impairment.

Alcohol has had so much scientific driving research done on it that there's a correlation between blood alcohol levels and impairment. That's how we set a limit.


Furthermore I wonder how long one stays impaired from a night on the turps? So after a late bender the morning after you might blow over limit. But being that it is the brains release of chemicals once encountering alcohol not the alcohol itself. So is the impairment equivalent to the breath measurement after many hours of the effect? I don't know the answer to that question.

I've had the displeasure of processing a few for drink driving the morning after. But then, I've also had the displeasure of attending a few Sunday morning crashes where people have crashed after a nights sleep, due to impairment from alcohol from the night before.

[Viking01]

[QUOTE=rastuscat;1131101176]There has always been a method to prosecute impaired drivers.

Rastus,

Excellent summary. Thanks.

Cheers

Edit: Forgot to add link below (last update 28/05/2018)

https://www.transport.govt.nz/legislation/acts/qasdrugimpaireddrivinglaw/

[F5 Dave]

Thanks Rastus. What it does say is that stuff article could easily have been shock bollocks.

Certainly I have woken up pissed, but I've also used my tester to gauge how quickly it drops off at the tail end. Stopping early is the go.
Wait that extra couple of hours if there is any question. If it's been an all nighter drinking late then turn on the telly and order pizza. You'll need something to throw up.

But I still wonder how strong the link is compared to when the brain is early in the process.
Making up facts, maybe it is 30% less after than at the start. With no real basis than gut feeling.
clearly if you drop a bottle of vodka till 3am and get up at 8 to get to work you will be well well over and well well impaired.
But I can't see anyone rushing out to scientifically prove one way or the other.

[Mike.Gayner]

Perhaps. But it doesn't help with his royal Mike Gay-ness attitude calling NZ Police, who are like any of us working professionals, "fucking idiots and civil parasites."

Data is one thing, he is translating data in a way only to justify his own personal opinion to point fingers at the police for "not doing their job".

I believe NZ police deserve more respect than some comments from a keyboard warrior.

Don't know what's gotten you so upset - is your husband a cop?

[Hoonicorn]

Ngauranga gorge's speed camera has been the biggest earner, last year they made $2.4 million from that one camera location alone. I'd be keen to know if it's the downhill side that makes the most.
Speed is an easy target for police but car safety improvements have probably done more for reducing the road toll than a speed camera ever did. I would like to see more red light cameras though, red light runners are a deadly danger to anyone on 2 wheels.

[Autech]

There's one at the base of the Kaimai ranges I noticed the other day. Right in an overtaking zone...

"Safety"

Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk

[pete376403]

Ngauranga gorge's speed camera has been the biggest earner, last year they made $2.4 million from that one camera location alone. I'd be keen to know if it's the downhill side that makes the most.

6 lane, divided highway - probably the safest bit of road around.

[Scuba_Steve]

Ngauranga gorge's speed camera has been the biggest earner, last year they made $2.4 million from that one camera location alone. I'd be keen to know if it's the downhill side that makes the most.
Speed is an easy target for police but car safety improvements have probably done more for reducing the road toll than a speed camera ever did. I would like to see more red light cameras though, red light runners are a deadly danger to anyone on 2 wheels.

careful what you wish for, red light cameras have been shown to increase accident rates at lights
(to be more exact: small decrease in serious, moderate increase in minor, small to moderate increase in overall accidents)

[rastuscat]

careful what you wish for, red light cameras have been shown to increase accident rates at lights

Reference?

[Scuba_Steve]

Reference?

There's alot out there, think my comment came from the Winnipeg one; but here's a small list of studies & media investigations showing increases anyways.
(no links unfortunately you'll have to do your own Googley if you want to see the full thing; I have alot of these as PDF's on my PC so don't have the site links)
Course RLC's, their increase in accidents or not, none of that addresses the root cause of the problem in the 1st place which is the sever overuse of lights & the retardation of the roading network (speed, but I guess also people)


Virginia Accidents Increased After Ticket Camera Installation
The Virginia Transportation Research Council released a report expanding upon earlier research into the safety effects of red light cameras in Virginia. It showed an overall increase in crashes after cameras were installed.

A Long Term Study of Red-Light Cameras and Accidents
The conclusion of this Australian study was that RLCs are not an effective countermeasure and that they can increase the number of rear end crashes.

Los Angeles Red Light Cameras Lead To Increased Accidents
A local TV station fact-checked the city’s claims that their ticket cameras reduced accidents and found that the opposite was true. At 20 of the 32 intersections studied, accidents increased and several intersections tripled their accident rate.

Red Light Running Cameras: Would Crashes, Injuries and Automobile Insurance Rates Increase If They Are Used in Florida?
A report published in Florida Public Health Review journal found that red light cameras increased accidents and insurance industry profit.

A Detailed Investigation Of Crash Risk Reduction Resulting From Red-Light Cameras In Small Urban Areas
A study prepared by the North Carolina A&T State University found that red-light cameras increased the number of accidents at intersections.

Evaluation of the Red-Light-Camera-Enforcement Pilot Project
This report from Ontario, Canada’s Ministry of Transportation’s concluded that jurisdictions using photo enforcement experienced an overall increase in property damage and fatal and injury rear-end collisions.

Virginia DOT Study on Red-Light Cameras
The Virginia Department of Transportation released a biased report in favor of the cameras that still documented an increase in accidents, including more rear-end collisions and injuries.

Photo Enforcement Program Review Final Report 2006 - Winnipeg audit

Los Angeles | KCAL TV
A local TV station fact-checked the city’s claims that their ticket cameras reduced accidents and found that the opposite was true. At 20 of the 32 intersections studied, accidents increased and several intersections tripled their accident rate.

Washington, D.C. | Washington Post
This report showed an overall increase in accidents at red-light camera intersections of 107 percent.

Portland, Oregon | KATU News
KATU News reviewed city statistics and found a 140 percent increase in rear-end crashes at the intersections where red light cameras were installed.

Fort Collins, Colorado | The Coloradoan
Ft. Collins, Colorado has experienced an 83 percent increase in the number of accidents since red light cameras were installed.

Oceanside, California | North County Times
This report showed a 800 percent increase in rear-end accidents.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Philadelphia Weekly
This article showed an increase of 10 to 21 percent in accidents in intersections with red-light cameras.

Corpus Christi, Texas | TheNewspaper.com
Data released by the city showed that the total number of accidents in Corpus Christi increased 14 percent, from 310 incidents to 353, at nine locations where automated ticketing machines were stationed. Contrary to the claim that red light cameras reduce the severity of collisions, the number of accidents involving injuries increased 28 percent from 140 to 179. Rear end collisions also increased by nearly a third from 160 to 208.

Winnipeg, Ontario | Winnipeg Sun
The average number of collisions at Winnipeg’s 12 original red-light camera intersections has jumped 18% since the devices were installed in 2003, according to Manitoba Public Insurance data obtained by the Winnipeg Sun. Despite claims by politicians and police brass that intersection cameras are making our streets safer by reducing collisions, the MPI data shows after six years of use, crashes at the intersections are actually going up, not down.

Impact of Red-Light Camera Enforcement on Crash Experience — A Synthesis of Highway Practice
A recent study by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) illustrates the lack of evidence supporting the effectiveness of red-light cameras.

U.S. PIRG Red Light Camera Report – Caution: Red Light Cameras Ahead
According to a this study by the national public interest advocacy group, U.S. PRIG, local governments hungry for revenue are signing contracts with red-light camera companies that put profit over traffic safety.

Camera Enforcement vs. Best Engineering Practices – The Clash of Diametrically Opposed Forces!

Red-Light-Running Behaviour at Red-Light Camera and Control Intersections
Monash University study showing red-light cameras have no effect on reducing violations.

[Scuba_Steve]

Nope wasn't the Winnipeg one (talking about the "small decrease in serious, moderate increase in minor, small to moderate increase in overall accidents" comment), apparently they had this to say


the number of collisions increased 58 percent after cameras were introduced at the twelve intersections selected by Winnipeg.
These extra accidents were not minor ones. Injuries increased 64 percent and property damage claims between 60 and 113 percent, with the largest claims increasing the most.
These effects were specific to the camera intersections, as the number of accidents citywide increased only 7 percent during the same period

[SaferRides]

Why am I not surprised.

Even when the research is available, it's just ignored. The Key government finally bowed to media pressure and reduced the blood alcohol level, despite an ACC study showing it would make little difference.

I can't wait for the new "evidence based" road safety measures that Julie Ann Genter has said will be introduced.

[Berries]

careful what you wish for, red light cameras have been shown to increase accident rates at lights
(to be more exact: small decrease in serious, moderate increase in minor, small to moderate increase in overall accidents)
Reducing the crash rate is not the main concern for NZTA. They want to reduce the rate of death and serious injuries so if there are less people killed or seriously hurt but more minor or non injury crashes that is a win for them.

It is expected that there will be an increase in rear end crashes as people who might push it after the green goes off will stop harder and get hit from behind. Better this than being t-boned in the drivers door at 50km/h, that shit hurts.

Based on my own research into Dunedin's red light running crashes I have found that a camera is not going to be all that effective because it is rare for someone to blatantly and purposefully run a red light, it happens because they fail to see the red light, or the signals, or the intersection itself. That will happen just as often and those tend to be the higher severity crashes.

[R650R]

Based on my own research into Dunedin's red light running crashes I have found that a camera is not going to be all that effective because it is rare for someone to blatantly and purposefully run a red light, it happens because they fail to see the red light, or the signals, or the intersection itself. That will happen just as often and those tend to be the higher severity crashes.

And how large was your sample group? How did you get honest answers/data?
Because who is going to admit they thought " fuck it, I'm running late I can make the gap" and then got caught out by someone quick on the gas off the green. There going to say I'm sure it was green still, I just didn't see it, distracted by kid I thought might step out etc.....

[pritch]

Maybe I wasn't paying attention but I got the impression from the TV item I saw that the current technology for road side drug testing is not that great. That isn't hard to believe. The equipment US law enforcement use to identify drugs from other organic material rates a joke status. Which is funny, unless of course it was your tea leaves that were identified as canabis. And yes that actually happened.

[roogazza]

Maybe I wasn't paying attention but I got the impression from the TV item I saw that the current technology for road side drug testing is not that great. That isn't hard to believe. The equipment US law enforcement use to identify drugs from other organic material rates a joke status. Which is funny, unless of course it was your tea leaves that were identified as canabis. And yes that actually happened.

It was Oregano officer, honest it was !

[Cosmik de Bris]

It was Oregano officer, honest it was !

Many years ago our flat was raided and the police found a bag of suspicious white powder, I told them it was Sodium Bicarbonate and that the quantity I had would have sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars, I even tasted it for them and offered it to them to taste, but no it had to be taken away and analysed. It was Sodium Bicarbonate.

Cheers

[F5 Dave]

Can you imagine the amount of times a cop is bareface lied to every day? I imagine it would destroy your faith in trusting what anyone said. Especially as you would spend a fair amount of you time in the company of the less pleasant people of the community.

[Madness]

I imagine it would destroy your faith in trusting what anyone said. Especially as you would spend a fair amount of you time in the company of the less pleasant people of the community.

Just like being on KB.

[Berries]

And how large was your sample group? How did you get honest answers/data?
Because who is going to admit they thought " fuck it, I'm running late I can make the gap" and then got caught out by someone quick on the gas off the green. There going to say I'm sure it was green still, I just didn't see it, distracted by kid I thought might step out etc.....
Agree a bit but you would be surprised how many people actually do fess up.

I just looked at all crashes where a vehicle reportedly ran a red light and then looked at both driver statements. Taking what was said with a pinch of salt it is not that hard to determine whether it was someone trying to make the gap when the light changed to red or someone who sailed through a solid red based on what other traffic was doing at the time.

You don’t tend to get T-bone crashes caused by trying to make the gap at the end of the phase due to the all red period, no matter how fast you get on the gas. These crashes will be when someone facing you on the same signal assumes you will stop because the light has gone red and they turn across your path.

There are a few complete idiots out there but generally people don’t have a death wish so seeing someone just keep going and purposefully run a red light at speed in the middle of the phase when other traffic is around is very rare. Take out those being pursued by Police and I doubt you would find many at all, at least down here.

[FJRider]

I just looked at all crashes where a vehicle reportedly ran a red light and then looked at both driver statements. Taking what was said with a pinch of salt it is not that hard to determine whether it was someone trying to make the gap when the light changed to red or someone who sailed through a solid red based on what other traffic was doing at the time.

You don’t tend to get T-bone crashes caused by trying to make the gap at the end of the phase due to the all red period, no matter how fast you get on the gas. These crashes will be when someone facing you on the same signal assumes you will stop because the light has gone red and they turn across your path.



I haven't found traffic lights anywhere that will go to green ... the very instant the other set of lights go red . In my experience ... I've had more issues with those taking off before the green light is on ... rather than red light runners. Some seem to have a few seconds delay.

[Berries]

I haven't found traffic lights anywhere that will go to green ... the very instant the other set of lights go red.
Even the simplest of intersections have a one second minimum for the all red period, longer at others. Sometimes extended to cater for red light runners :weird:

[caspernz]

Mildly related to the topic, an observation made by my latest trainee. Over the past few weeks, trucking 24/7 across top half of the north island, a trend showed. At least 50% of all roadside stopped cars, as in by HP or Police, seemed to be late model expensive (mostly) European cars. Ditto for at least 50% of all dodgy overtakes, expensive late model Euro cars. Same trend for crashes, as in cars sitting pranged up on side of road or in a paddock...yep you guessed it, late model Euro cars.

Now neither my trainee or myself are Rhodes scholars, but the trend in this was obvious. Now I can't call this definitive research by any means, but does having a fancy car make a driver believe he/she is above the law, and/or possesses above average driving skills on account of the fancy vehicle? The evidence suggests there may well be, no offence intended :shutup::innocent:

[FJRider]

Mildly related to the topic, an observation made by my latest trainee ....

A few years back ... Holden's and Toyota's were the commonest vehicles on the road ... and they were involved in the majority of accidents. The affluence of motorists in any area ... might have more to do with the statistics of vehicle types crashing ...

[rastuscat]

Even the simplest of intersections have a one second minimum for the all red period, longer at others. Sometimes extended to cater for red light runners :weird:

Pilgrim Place, where it exits onto Moorhouse Ave, has a virtually nil all red dwell at the end of the green phase. It's because Pilgrim Place is a short stretch, and nobody get's up much speed.

Everywhere else has a minimum 1 second.

[rastuscat]

Mildly related to the topic, an observation made by my latest trainee. Over the past few weeks, trucking 24/7 across top half of the north island, a trend showed. At least 50% of all roadside stopped cars, as in by HP or Police, seemed to be late model expensive (mostly) European cars. Ditto for at least 50% of all dodgy overtakes, expensive late model Euro cars. Same trend for crashes, as in cars sitting pranged up on side of road or in a paddock...yep you guessed it, late model Euro cars.

Now neither my trainee or myself are Rhodes scholars, but the trend in this was obvious. Now I can't call this definitive research by any means, but does having a fancy car make a driver believe he/she is above the law, and/or possesses above average driving skills on account of the fancy vehicle? The evidence suggests there may well be, no offence intended :shutup::innocent:

I wonder if all the extra technology in those vehicles is decreasing the drivers attention to the driving task.

[caspernz]

I wonder if all the extra technology in those vehicles is decreasing the drivers attention to the driving task.

No doubt.

With some it's looking more like a sense of entitlement causing the distraction :brick:

[R650R]

Which is funny, unless of course it was your tea leaves that were identified as canabis. And yes that actually happened.

I'm a big tea drinker and passed several random chewy swab tests at work plus the proper piss test on recent promotion.
NONE of the guys who have failed and been fired subsequent to being tested after safety incidents have contested the results... Only know of one case where a person was stood down due to proper medicine affecting the test result....

I can see a clear difference between the people at my current workplace (many are ex truckies) compared to previous workplaces where there was no drug testing... Yes there are problems and clever buggers can fool the tests apparently but its a start to tackiling the epidemic. Only going to get worse once drug use combines with poor work ethic and DGAF lazy millenials.....

[F5 Dave]

Boasting about your excessive Tannin abuse isn't big or clever.

You should get help.

Is there a 0800 Quit-Tea number I wonder?

[caspernz]

I'm a big tea drinker and passed several random chewy swab tests at work plus the proper piss test on recent promotion.
NONE of the guys who have failed and been fired subsequent to being tested after safety incidents have contested the results... Only know of one case where a person was stood down due to proper medicine affecting the test result....

I can see a clear difference between the people at my current workplace (many are ex truckies) compared to previous workplaces where there was no drug testing... Yes there are problems and clever buggers can fool the tests apparently but its a start to tackiling the epidemic. Only going to get worse once drug use combines with poor work ethic and DGAF lazy millenials.....

The increase in random drug/alcohol testing can show up some weird results. At a previous workplace it took ages for the chap who we suspected of using synthetics, to get sprung. Conversely, some "targeted" random drug testing where the firm was trying to nab a chap who was a heavy drinker, went off the rails. The drinker was forewarned the drug bus was on site by one of his co-workers, called in sick instead, missing the random test. Another driver, outwardly solid, got volunteered for the random test and failed on trace cannabis and got the sack :rolleyes:

Place I work at now does rigorous random testing, well it's not random as such, for the whole crew on an incoming shift get tested with no clue it's about to happen. All good by me :cool:

[Berries]

Another driver, outwardly solid, got volunteered for the random test and failed on trace cannabis and got the sack
Nah. It should all come back to impairment shouldn't it? Someone was talking to me about work place drug testing last week and his view was that it has caused a shift from cannabis to other drugs that you have got rid of by Monday. If true it's not the best outcome for the country is it?

[pritch]

Place I work at now does rigorous random testing, well it's not random as such,

A guy I knew was sentenced to a spell in the big house. He was telling me that he and his mates were tested every time testing was conducted. Believing him to be disinterested in drugs I asked why that was. His reply was to the effect that the staff conducting the testing knew that he and his mates didn't use drugs, so they were always selected for the "random testing".

Sometime later there was a TV news item about drug use in jails. The Justice Dept spokesman said that their random testing regime indicated that the incidence of drug use in prisons was very low. Yeah right! :whistle:

[caspernz]

Nah. It should all come back to impairment shouldn't it? Someone was talking to me about work place drug testing last week and his view was that it has caused a shift from cannabis to other drugs that you have got rid of by Monday. If true it's not the best outcome for the country is it?

The topic of impairment is a valid one. Boozed up from last night is impaired, trace amounts of dope from 2 weeks ago isn't. Yet the testing method treats both the same.

Oh and yes for the use of the synthetic stuff that "flushes out" damn near overnight. The chap I referred to earlier, his demeanour changed over time, paranoia set in, his temper swayed wildly, the circles he socialised in were dodgy, so all the signs were there. Took ages to catch him out though, and it involved stern tactics.


A guy I knew was sentenced to a spell in the big house. He was telling me that he and his mates were tested every time testing was conducted. Believing him to be disinterested in drugs I asked why that was. His reply was to the effect that the staff conducting the testing knew that he and his mates didn't use drugs, so they were always selected for the "random testing".

Sometime later there was a TV news item about drug use in jails. The Justice Dept spokesman said that their random testing regime indicated that the incidence of drug use in prisons was very low. Yeah right! :whistle:

Oh heck, I knew of one trucking outfit (who I best not name here) where the boss told the lads 4 weeks out when the random drug tests would take place. Lay off the whacky backy, drink lots of water and we'll be sweet...words from the boss :facepalm::shutup::innocent:

When I talk about the drug testing in my current outfit not being random, I mean the whole crew that comes in for the next shift gets tested, no exceptions.

[Scuba_Steve]

When I talk about the drug testing in my current outfit not being random, I mean the whole crew that comes in for the next shift gets tested, no exceptions.

Guy I work with was on a job site (can't remember which Fletcher, Fulton Hogan or some such) where drug testing was taking place, he was there to fix something for 1 of the crews working on site not there to work the site himself. Cause he was on-site he got lined up to be tested didn't matter he didn't work for them, work the site, or plan to be there longer than half hr he was tested as was every other person on-site that day.
On the one hand it could be argued that testing everyone incl independents/repair services is going bit far but I guess their site their rules right?
Gotta feel a bit sorry for the company that had to pay 2.5hrs for a .5hr job because of it tho

[Autech]

There's one at the base of the Kaimai ranges I noticed the other day. Right in an overtaking zone...

"Safety"

Sent from my SM-A730F using TapatalkGuess who just recieved their first ever speeding ticket and from what camera?

Only noticed it on the way back so it got me on the way there at a massive 111kms while overtaking up the hill.

Cunts.

Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk

[Jeff Sichoe]

if we target people driving when high when we will target the other hordes of road users who even when straight are worse drivers?

[buggerit]

Mildly related to the topic, an observation made by my latest trainee. Over the past few weeks, trucking 24/7 across top half of the north island, a trend showed. At least 50% of all roadside stopped cars, as in by HP or Police, seemed to be late model expensive (mostly) European cars. Ditto for at least 50% of all dodgy overtakes, expensive late model Euro cars. Same trend for crashes, as in cars sitting pranged up on side of road or in a paddock...yep you guessed it, late model Euro cars.

Now neither my trainee or myself are Rhodes scholars, but the trend in this was obvious. Now I can't call this definitive research by any means, but does having a fancy car make a driver believe he/she is above the law, and/or possesses above average driving skills on account of the fancy vehicle? The evidence suggests there may well be, no offence intended :shutup::innocent:

very important people with flash cars spend more time on the phone maybe?

[buggerit]

Guess who just recieved their first ever speeding ticket and from what camera?

Only noticed it on the way back so it got me on the way there at a massive 111kms while overtaking up the hill.

Cunts.

Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk


Raglan camera by any chance?

[Autech]

Raglan camera by any chance?Nah the one on Te Poi side of the kaimais.
Saw the one on the way to Raglan the other day though. Cheeky place

Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk