Geez there is a lot of anti police

[bondagebunny]

stuff on this site.

But when your bike gets stolen "who you gunna call"

I have been reading some of the stuff here about how fast you all can go and how you get pissed off with the police catching you ( cant be that fast)

What about accepting that you know the speed limits and make a personal choice to disregard them. Take ownership of your choice when you get caught.

Stop being a pack of pussies - it aint anyones fault but your own.

The collective "THEY" can't get revenue - but that you give it to them by your own actions.

So if you get a ticket - dont snivel - take your punishment and say thank you master.

[riffer]

I don't have a beef with Police as such ... its HP and their uncompromising attitudes I have a problem with. And the government's pathetic attempts at road safety.

When the govt turns the screws on speeding and lets HP give us 3km/h grace on speed like Victoria you will end up criminalising a large percentage of the population ...

and you won't make a damn bit of difference to the road toll.

The Police are just the mindless agents of stupid policy - and that's what I don't like.

[spudchucka]

I don't have a beef with Police as such ... its HP and their uncompromising attitudes I have a problem with. And the government's pathetic attempts at road safety.

When the govt turns the screws on speeding and lets HP give us 3km/h grace on speed like Victoria you will end up criminalising a large percentage of the population ...

and you won't make a damn bit of difference to the road toll.

The Police are just the mindless agents of stupid policy - and that's what I don't like.

While I agree that a 3k/ph tolerance is ridiculas, I don't believe that will be introduced in NZ.

Yes, the HP are tough on speed enforcement. They are also tough on the use of restraints, cycle helmets & drink driving. The reason being that these are injury promoting behaviours. Everyone will come back and say "bollocks it's jsut for revenue gathering", but really how else can the driving public be penalised??

Surely no one would suggest that we shouldn't have speed limits and its OK to drive around drunk. So if we accept that these things require controlling, why don't we accept the financial penalties involved? Is there a better, more appropriate form of punishment??

Getting a speeding ticket is not a criminal offence because it does not carry a term of imprisonment.

I totally dissagree about the police being, "the mindless agents of stupid policy". Some of the policies are stupid but most cops believe in what they do because they see first hand the devastation that results from traffic crashes.

There seems to be a culture in this country that it is OK to speed and it is everyones god given right to get away with it. When you apply for a licence you accept the conditions of its use and know the consequences of being caught. All this whinging about speed enforcment is pathetic.

[Kwaka-Kid]

i agree with bondage bunny in a number of ways :) rock on dude!
and the HP are great, hey they gave me a forced invite to donate to the government and it felt bad, but it worked at least a bit because i definatly have changed the way i ride :)

[wkid_one]

I agree that speeding is a conscious decision........

HOWEVER....there situational danger varies from place to place. 100kph can have very different risks and dangers associated based on WHERE the speed takes place.

NZ has always had a one size fits all mentality when it comes to governing traffic - and whilst I agree that having a million different speeding restrictions is impossible to manage effectively.......we need more variation in our speed limit determinations.

Lowering a speed limit and/or tolerances does nothing to the road toll - all it does is increase the compliance costs of policing the limits/motorists. In fact - as Lou has said previously - many other countries manage to work with much higher limits than ours safely.

Also - the limits on speed as directly as a result of the piss poor investment NZ (read Transit, therefore Government) has made in to NZ roading.

The police are only doing a job - however trying to run a social service entity at a profit is ridiculous. It appears that the NZ Government is trying to justify the police force through revenue collected.

I am sorry but I have absolutely no respect for the NZ Police Force as they have been reduced to mobile 'parking wardens' - out looking for any and every excuse to dish tickets out. And at the expense of what - JUST ABOUT EVERY MAJOR CRIME STATISTIC HAS RISEN IN NZ because they focus on traffic infringements - not crime - and that crime they do focus on is usually on a reactive basis anyway.

[Holy Roller]

stuff on this site.


What about accepting that you know the speed limits and make a personal choice to disregard them. Take ownership of your choice when you get caught.

Stop being a pack of pussies - it aint anyones fault but your own.

Look upon it as user pays....
if you want to go fast you may have to pay for the privilege.
This is one privilege that causes my family to go hungry once in a while. Or go to the track days and do it till ya heart bursts.

[spudchucka]

The police are only doing a job - however trying to run a social service entity at a profit is ridiculous. It appears that the NZ Government is trying to justify the police force through revenue collected.

I am sorry but I have absolutely no respect for the NZ Police Force as they have been reduced to mobile 'parking wardens' - out looking for any and every excuse to dish tickets out. And at the expense of what - JUST ABOUT EVERY MAJOR CRIME STATISTIC HAS RISEN IN NZ because they focus on traffic infringements - not crime - and that crime they do focus on is usually on a reactive basis anyway.

It would be intersting to see a comparison between revenue taken via traffic infringement notices and speed camera notices and the annual police budget allocated. Perhaps if the Govt reinvested some of that money into police resources there would be an increase in crime resolution.

The explosion in the use of P might have a little to do with the crime stats increasing as well. The police and the police assn have been warning the Govt for years that they need more resources to deal with the increasing problem, until recently this has been to no avail.

Proactive policing strategies require investment in resources, without the required resources the reactive model is what you are left with. In most cases crimes are reported by the public, its happened already and therefore is reactive from the outset.

On the other hand road policing is of course proactive and can be because thats where the resources are allocated - blame the Govt & Police HQ. The ordinary bobbies, which still make up the majority of the police, are out and about every day catching crims and making a positive difference to peoples lives.

[MD]

I guess its nice to see there are a couple of remaining NZers that still respect the HP. Gosh, I wonder why the other 95% of us have turned against them after years of respecting the Police. Key point here, the Police fighting real crime are great, its the mindless cash registers at the roadside we disrespect.

Personally I accept the fine and always have but the demerit points are too harsh and unreasonable. Its punishing us twice for the one offence and potentially losing your licence creates a host of flow on punishments such as loss of income, personal distress and it tempts good people to then risk becoming criminals driving without a licence.
The Cops nowadays are totally inflexible and clearly only driven by achieving fine quotas, which begs the question whats in it for them - staff appraisal ratings? salary review/bonus time? Whatever, I don't see road safety having anything to do with the curent road enforcement behaviour of hidden cameras, cops behinds bushes etc.. its a 100% punitive measures. Wait to you meet someone who has lost their licence doing 112 kph on a deserted safe road.

[Lou Girardin]

If your bike gets nicked, bunny, you might as well not call the Police.
Until recently wasn't your occupation/hobby illegal? Did/would you happily accept punishment for providing pleasure/pain to willing others?
Now it's not. Wasn't that the correction of an unjust law?
Who says we have to accept unjust laws and/or the application of them?
Lou

[Two Smoker]

I still respect the HP guys and the police, I dont like some of the decisions they make, but if that occured to me i would take it up in court.

Last Christmas when the HP gave me a nice present and i in return had to give the Govenment a nice present, i didnt complain, (i was actually thinking shit im lucky he didnt get the speed i was doin 15 seconds ago:crazy: )

As i said before if you are willing to take the risk, yuo are willing to take the consequences......

[Jackrat]

There are also a lot of people on this site that are pro police but we are not as vocal as the bleaters.
I don't even have an issue with the evil HP,as I don't habitualy brake the law.
It's only really the cowboys who feel hard done by when they get caught that have a bitch.The rest of us just don't think there is anything to say.

[bondagebunny]

is surprised - I feel so normal

by the way Lou - what I do is not illegal - I aint a hooker.

[Lou Girardin]

Sorry bunny, I stand corrected. But the point is still valid, Si?
And Jackrat, not everyone that is against the current driver persecution is a hoon, many of us object on principle.
Lou

[Motu]

I have no problem with the HP or police,all good guys doing a tough job - if they pick on me I've broken the law,simple as that.Every one I've had dealings with has been polite and understanding,and a few weeks ago I was let off doing 80 in a 50 zone - I can't really complain can I?

[Dave]

If you call the police they claim they are too busy to find your stolen bike, And yet if they put the same resources into finding stolen property as they did into catching speedsters, they would have more luck.Only thing is, THEY MAKE NO MONEY FROM FINDING STOLEN PROPERTY

[SPman]

Its actually rather sad that this thread is even considered.There is a lot of lack of distinction between police on criminal duties and police on traffic duties. Due to the politicos constant meddling, its no wonder. In the days of the MOT, police could pull you over and ticket you, but mainly, they didnt bother - you had to be a right prat. There were as many POS MOT officers as there are in the Highway patrol, but, you get that anywhere.
What has changed, is the politicos obsession with "being seen to do something". They dont know what, as long as its something and, as usual, its the easiest "something" they can do. Convince the populace at large, that "speed" is dangerous, will kill all your loved ones, and lead to the downfall of the human race. Any "speed"!
Not "speed, inappropriate for conditions ", - set an abitrary limit, take away all autonomy, discretion and judgement from the police who have to enforce it and turn it into a business. Tell the police how they will operate, - try and turn them into good little government robots, then try and tell the public its a "safety" issue - its all for your own good. A partial truth is far better than a whole truth! :mad:
Then, keep the police undermanned, try and break down their morale, force - induce them to act like nazis to meet artificial bullshit,"performance" figures and then say things like "See, we are committed to road safety and we will get the road toll down to X no by whenever!", as if a complex issue like traffic movement can be reduced to a mathematical figure or "performance goal"
Then act surprised when there is a backlash - against those who are given the unenviable job of trying to enforce this crap - "the police"
The backlash should be against the politicos -including the LTSA who spout this dogma - who make the laws, who say things like "motorcycles are dangerous and if I had my way they would be banned" and other constructive comments! Speed is dangerous - but it is inappropriate speed for the area and conditions that is dangerous - not just speed.
And why just target speed, without putting in place comprehensive training and education schemes - coz its cheap and easy.
A well trained, properly functioning highway patrol should have the autonomy and authority to be able to make judgement calls - give warnings, "educate' drivers. There will always be arseholes in any job, luck of the draw. We need a Highway Patrol - there are zillions of fuckwits out there on the road - but we need a structure that will let them do their job properly, not treat everyone automatically like an 18 yr old learner driver. We need to be able to regain a measure of respect for the police force that the active face of the traffic branch acting under government orders is rapidly losing.
So how about giving the cops a bit of slack, (criticise where justified), but get stuck into the weasily two faced politicos who put these structures in place in the first place! :mad: (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=1#)

But.....:brick:

[MikeL]

Well said, SPMan.
Some of us have tried to inject some balance into this argument, but often our justified criticism of the current situation is (wifully or not) misinterpreted as police-bashing. Of course to a large extent the rank and file police are caught in the middle and deserve sympathy. That does not alter the fact that in applying unjust or unreasonable policies they should be surprised or dismayed if they lose the respect and confidence of the public. I know that the police (and emergency services too) have a thankless task and are all too often abused and attacked by the people they are trying to help. It used not to be like this. The reasons for the changed nature of the relationship between police and public are complex and have been discussed elsewhere. Unfortunately instead of the required investment in the aspects of policing that really make a difference (more local cops on the beat, higher standards of recruitment and training) all we will see is more money wasted on PR campaigns.

[James Deuce]

Timid hand raised - never had a traffic infringement or conviction in 22 years of driving/riding and never intend too. I have two parking tickets to my name, and I successfully defended one of them.

If I get busted I'll pay my fine/do my time.

I don't like getting stopped when I haven't done anything is all. And that is government policy (vote-catching behaviour) not common sense policing - which I am sure most police would be much happier to provide than being a traffic monitor.

[Jackrat]

Ok I,m probably going to cop it for saying this but it's how I see things.
If I get pulled over by the police when I've done nothing wrong I tend to just look at it as them doing their job.I am aware that a lot of real crooks get caught by simple traffic stops,And as far as drink driving cheak points go,Well I have never been held up for more than about one minite.I travel a lot at night and have been pulled over a number of times in the small hours,mabe it means that I'm not very smart or something but I don't see it as being some infringement on my civil rights,I just see it as the cops doing the job they are payed to do.I mean what if I was up to no good,What then?

[spudchucka]

If you call the police they claim they are too busy to find your stolen bike, And yet if they put the same resources into finding stolen property as they did into catching speedsters, they would have more luck.Only thing is, THEY MAKE NO MONEY FROM FINDING STOLEN PROPERTY

And they make no money from issuing traffic infringements either. This logic is inherently flawed.

[spudchucka]

You make valid points SPman.

Speed in its self isn't dangerous, in fact its stopping suddenly that does the damage. Speed is just part of the equation that adds up to the net damage as a result of a crash, its pretty basic physics.

The problem is we don't elect when we are going to have a crash, they happen without warning. So how fast you go is dependant on how much damage you are prepared to inflict on yourself or another person should you be unlucky enough to be involved in a crash.

[Lou Girardin]

And they make no money from issuing traffic infringements either. This logic is inherently flawed.

No they don't, directly. But a big revenue stream makes for a happy Govt. and a happy Govt is a (relatively) generous one. Hence, the proliferation of HP cars, Stalker radars and lasers.
So Daves logic is correct.
Lou

[Coldkiwi]

The problem is we don't elect when we are going to have a crash, they happen without warning. So how fast you go is dependant on how much damage you are prepared to inflict on yourself or another person should you be unlucky enough to be involved in a crash.

...true.... unless we put driver education into the equation and remove some of the 'unlucky' component. You probably know as well as the rest of us that accidents are all caused by a number of factors from poor reactions, poor maintenance, poor visibility, poor decision making, poor attitudes and piss poor education. I don't think people who have ridden for 20+ years without crashing would say they are 'lucky'.. they are just more careful than most. Sure, we can all be victims of other peoples bad decisions but a more educated populous would be in a MUCH better position to avoid many crashes we have on our roads. Sadly for us all, our esteemed LTSA experts and politicians believe educating the drivers will make us drive faster because we will get arrogant (umm.. yes, I see the link.... no honest I do!) and so are apparently opposed to teaching people more about handling a vehicle.
better drivers/riders cause/have less crashes... why is that so hard to accept for politicans and law makers!?

[Kwaka-Kid]

Sadly for us all, our esteemed LTSA experts and politicians believe educating the drivers will make us drive faster because we will get arrogant (umm.. yes, I see the link.... no honest I do!) and so are apparently opposed to teaching people more about handling a vehicle.
better drivers/riders cause/have less crashes...
I do see it, i think it depends on an age/maturity thing, its a real hard one, the way i see it its almost 50/50 going one way or the other, except that the long term affect is that when the immature ones grow out (hopefully) of being immature (nah, never will!) they will still have the skills they have been taught. But i unfortuantly i do believe that many teens etc put on practical courses etc will become big-headed about it and try more to prove it to mates etc, has definatly happened to me, seen it happen heaps, and will continue seeing it happen, surely you have too CK? cmon surely your teens wernt too many decades ago! -im just lucky i lived thru these days and now have come out alive and with some extra experience (still not much unfortunatly)

[Stinger]

You make valid points SPman.
The problem is we don't elect when we are going to have a crash, they happen without warning. So how fast you go is dependant on how much damage you are prepared to inflict on yourself or another person should you be unlucky enough to be involved in a crash.

I agree with this, however it is mainly true if we increase our average speed. When we increase our peak speed i.e for 30 seconds or whatever to overtake so we spend less time on the other side of the road then I think that it can make us safer.

One interesting theory about this is that we all have an ingrained sense of risk perception, we will increase our speed (or whatever) to match the level of risk we're happy with. Which means that when we increase our speed we become that much more careful. This can be seen in NZ where they have straightened corners thinking that it will make the road safer... in fact there are more accidents because people increase their speed because they feel that the corner is safer. It works both ways - speed is not an isolated variable.

[spudchucka]

I agree with this, however it is mainly true if we increase our average speed.
The whole objective of targeting speed is to lower the mean speed. You'll always get rouges that drive at whatever speed they want to.


When we increase our peak speed i.e for 30 seconds or whatever to overtake so we spend less time on the other side of the road then I think that it can make us safer.
I agree with this and I belive that a higher level of discretion should be shown on passing lanes. Up to about 120'ish would be reasonable to me.


One interesting theory about this is that we all have an ingrained sense of risk perception, we will increase our speed (or whatever) to match the level of risk we're happy with. Which means that when we increase our speed we become that much more careful. This can be seen in NZ where they have straightened corners thinking that it will make the road safer... in fact there are more accidents because people increase their speed because they feel that the corner is safer.
Well I don't know of any data that could prove that so if you have a link I'd like to see it. One similar theory is that a lot of crashes happen close to home because people are driving within their comfort zone and their level of awareness decreases.


It works both ways - speed is not an isolated variable
In terms of what causes a crash, I'd agree. In terms of damage & injury sustained in a crash, speed is an intrinsic factor, totally related to the level of carnage that results.

[Stinger]

Well I don't know of any data that could prove that so if you have a link I'd like to see it. One similar theory is that a lot of crashes happen close to home because people are driving within their comfort zone and their level of awareness decreases.


I don't know about actually proving it, but there is a reasonalble amount of data (I'll try to get my hands on some of it). There is an ergonomics professor (he calls it something different, applied cognitive psychology?? I think). He's the one who recently has made that developed the driving simulator that they've been using to test drunk driving limits and things (it's been on 20/20 etc).

Anyway, they did an isolated test to try to prove his theory. What they did is they used one of those big green sheets of canvas netting or similar to obscure view coming up to an intersection. The idea being that it would make people slow down as they approach because they have to be very close to the intersection before they can see if it is safe to go. As opposed to the way the intersection was before where you could see for miles around.
They did this as an ABA test i.e, they measured accidents with no canvas, then with canvas and then back to no canvas again. I believe the results they got pretty much showed what he thought (small low budget study though so obviously not proof).

When I get a chance I'll see if I can find any proper references to his work

[scumdog]

Ok I,m probably going to cop it for saying this but it's how I see things.
If I get pulled over by the police when I've done nothing wrong I tend to just look at it as them doing their job.I am aware that a lot of real crooks get caught by simple traffic stops,And as far as drink driving cheak points go,Well I have never been held up for more than about one minite.I travel a lot at night and have been pulled over a number of times in the small hours,mabe it means that I'm not very smart or something but I don't see it as being some infringement on my civil rights,I just see it as the cops doing the job they are payed to do.I mean what if I was up to no good,What then?

Far too much sense and logic here, you're saying things that a normal person should know, for this reason I do not think it a good idea to post such information JR, why you could end up converting one of the rabble-rousing rabid-raving nay-sayers to actually THINK. :confused:
Funny how 95% of the people I stop think much along the same lines as you, - and the ones that don't? well I brood on what they say for as much as 3 or 4 seconds sometimes, after all when somebody is letting rip just to hear their head roar it's not worth listening to. eh? :no:

[HanaBelle]

is surprised - I feel so normal

by the way Lou - what I do is not illegal - I aint a hooker.


Actually, it make no difference whether or not you do it for money bunny, honey...(ok, its punny)...s/m is illegal if it causes marks, otherwise known as "bodily harm", and that is so whether your partner consents or not - if you bruise, the legality you lose. (Dont ask me why I know this).

HB
PS theres a motorbike in the Hellfire Club in NYC, so this is on topic!

[spudchucka]

I don't know about actually proving it, but there is a reasonalble amount of data (I'll try to get my hands on some of it). There is an ergonomics professor (he calls it something different, applied cognitive psychology?? I think). He's the one who recently has made that developed the driving simulator that they've been using to test drunk driving limits and things (it's been on 20/20 etc).
I'm familiar with the theory and I saw the 20/20 show. What I was more interested in was data that proves this.........


This can be seen in NZ where they have straightened corners thinking that it will make the road safer... in fact there are more accidents because people increase their speed because they feel that the corner is safer.



When I get a chance I'll see if I can find any proper references to his work
Thanks, I'd apprectiate that.

[scumdog]

Well I don't know of any data that could prove that so if you have a link I'd like to see it. One similar theory is that a lot of crashes happen close to home because people are driving within their comfort zone and their level of awareness decreases.


My theory is that most crashes happen within 15km of home is because that's where most people do most of their driving/riding, that combined with comfort zone complacency is the most likely scenario IMHO

[thehollowmen]

by the way Lou - what I do is not illegal - I aint a hooker.


s/m is illegal if it causes marks, otherwise known as "bodily harm", and that is so whether your partner consents or not

As someone who delves into these practices on occassion... The law is iffy at the moment. It seems to be up to the judgement of the attending officers... there is law against "consentual abuse" but then again, piercing parlors, tattoo parlors, they all break the skin and cause 'bodily harm' but they haven't been outlawed.

The dentist when I was at school caused bodily harm and that shit wasn't consentual either... why hasn't the dentist been arrested? :crybaby: :blah:

[vifferman]

...s/m is illegal if it causes marks, otherwise known as "bodily harm", and that is so whether your partner consents or not - if you bruise, the legality you lose. (Dont ask me why I know this).
Why do you know this? :confused:

[Stinger]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12850084&dopt=Abstract

Here is his paper. Unfortunately you can't get the whole thing on the net without paying or belonging to a uni that has access. But, lots of libraries have these journals. I know the Auckland Uni does.

not proof, the study is too small but interesting anyway.

[spudchucka]

Cheers, as you say.....interesting!!

[MacD]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12850084&dopt=Abstract

Here is his paper. Unfortunately you can't get the whole thing on the net without paying or belonging to a uni that has access. But, lots of libraries have these journals. I know the Auckland Uni does.

not proof, the study is too small but interesting anyway.

Try this link: Nevermind - didn't work :doh:

[rodgerd]

And at the expense of what - JUST ABOUT EVERY MAJOR CRIME STATISTIC HAS RISEN IN NZ

Oh, horseshit. Crime has, overall, been falling for the last decade or so.

[rodgerd]

As someone who delves into these practices on occassion... The law is iffy at the moment. It seems to be up to the judgement of the attending officers... there is law against "consentual abuse" but then again, piercing parlors, tattoo parlors, they all break the skin and cause 'bodily harm' but they haven't been outlawed.


Hell, every time I go to Judo practise I end up with cuts, scrapes, and bruises, as well as the occasional sprain. Clearly I must have my sempai prosecuted.

[TwoSeven]

[QUOTE=celticno6]When the govt turns the screws on speeding and lets HP give us 3km/h grace on speed like Victoria you will end up criminalising a large percentage of the population ...
QUOTE]

Would it not be better to understand that the speed limit is the 'maximum' speed you should be traveling - not the actual speed you should be traveling. So if you want more than 3k - drive slower. Its amazing what slowing down by a couple of k will do for not getting busted for breaking a clearly defined law - which you sign up to simply by licensing yourself for.

[scumdog]

[QUOTE=celticno6]When the govt turns the screws on speeding and lets HP give us 3km/h grace on speed like Victoria you will end up criminalising a large percentage of the population ...
QUOTE]

Would it not be better to understand that the speed limit is the 'maximum' speed you should be traveling - not the actual speed you should be traveling. So if you want more than 3k - drive slower. Its amazing what slowing down by a couple of k will do for not getting busted for breaking a clearly defined law - which you sign up to simply by licensing yourself for.

Sheeit!! Whats happening to you people? So much sense and logic in one day from so many!!
I am just waiting for a big return onslought from the rampant rabid-raving nay-sayers anytime!!!! :wacko: