New Police Stats. [Archive] - Kiwi Biker forums

Lou Girardin

22nd May 2004, 07:06

Just been released; Officer issued speeding tickets increased last year from 230,000 to 400,000. 70% of tickets are for less than 20 km/h over the limit.
It's those damn killer, rabid, etc. etc. speeders again, risking all our lives by doing 11 km over the limit.
But it's not about revenue, oh no. It's lives they're saving out there.
Shame they don't get fixated on people like the clown that thought a metre off my tailight was a safe following distance yesterday. If one of Pudpluckers mates had seen me lanesplit to lose him I probably would have got the ticket.

6Chris6

22nd May 2004, 07:18

Shame they don't get fixated on people like the clown that thought a metre off my tailight was a safe following distance yesterday. If one of Pudpluckers mates had seen me lanesplit to lose him I probably would have got the ticket.

I would much prefer it if they "policed" the red light runners :finger: a bit more as i've almost dropped the bike through pulling out then slamming on the anchors as some dickhead goes through 5 secs after the red.
Surely this is a much bigger contributer (sp?) to accidets than 11k over the limit.
Not to mention the dickhead in the monster truck red ute last week who was at least 5 secs after the red and was going so quick he lost the rear and hit the curb turning right from Gt North Rd to Rata st New Lynn......Wanker, would,ve killed me if i'd have been on the bike and gone on the green!

Slim

22nd May 2004, 07:59

The road toll & these police stats made TV3 news last night. The comment was to the effect that perhaps speed is not the main cause of our Death Toll problems and the Police response was, "We focus on speeding because it works".

Hmmm. Riiiiiight! :crazy:

maybe

22nd May 2004, 08:44

Ye red lights around Wellington mean shit, I have had to sit at some lights and watch five or six cars go through the red before I could go.

The best a police car 4th in line through a red light.

White trash

22nd May 2004, 09:01

Speaking of red light runners, off topic, sorry! On Tuesday morning after I dropped my bro off at work and was continuing to my place of slavery, I was stopped on Tory St/ Vivian St lights. Lights turn green and for once I was off the ball in neautral. Grab 1st, go to turn right into Vivian St and a *fucken* big green gravel truck comes storming through the lights from my left at about 70kph.

"Jaesus!" sez me! So I gingerly turn right go to work and change me undies.

Thought about it later, OK he must've been going a bit quick and not able to stop safely. I'll give him that one.

Wednesday morning, same intersection, SAME FUCKING TRUCK! I shit you not!

This time he had a trailer on. I've got the rego, done the rego check and sent the letter. That mo-fo is gonna get it! I really can not beleive how dumb some drivers are!

CeeRyst!!!!

wkid_one

22nd May 2004, 10:06

wkid_one

22nd May 2004, 10:08

Surely this is a much bigger contributer (sp?) to accidets than 11k over the limit.

Interesting point - they say over half the accidents happen at intersections - yet 90%+ of the police activity is aimed at speeding? Go figure

k14

22nd May 2004, 10:14

So we can see that this is definately working, decreasing the road toll. We all know that because they issued 70% more tickets the road toll went down by 70% last year, didn't it?? Ohh no, it INCREASED!!! Dumb fuck revenue generaters. This is such a load of crap it is past the point of stupidity.

Something needs to be done to fix this.

Jackrat

22nd May 2004, 10:22

Hmmm,I couldn't help but notice when the guy on TV was asked the sticky questions all he could do was slag off and try to discredit the People asking the questions.
Must of gone to the helen clarke school of politics huh.
And this thing with red lights,If you stop on an orange in AK you stand a very good chance of geting hit from behind.I would NEVER do it on my bike but when I'm in my Patrol and have to go into Penrose I make a point of stoping on the oranges.I need some panel work done on the old girl and sooner or later some Jaffa is going to come along and pay for it for me.
Can hardly wait,will even be able to chuck a fit in their face an get away with it :2thumbsup

matthewt

22nd May 2004, 12:46

You ain't seen nothing til you've driven in Auckland!

Must be a nation-wide problem them because the wife and I couldn't believe how bad ChCh was at running red lights when we were there at xmas.

Slim

22nd May 2004, 13:12

Must be a nation-wide problem them because the wife and I couldn't believe how bad ChCh was at running red lights when we were there at xmas.
Ditto Hamilton.

I've been saved many a time by watching the traffic & waiting for cars to brake only to realise that the light's been green for me for a while & I would have been cleaned out by several vehicles if I hadn't been watching the traffic instead!

Two Smoker

22nd May 2004, 13:59

Im my cage, as soon as it turn green i floor it so if those fucking red light runners crash into me, they will get taught a great lesson, that or ive seen one red light runner trapped in the middle of the intersection because no one was letting him continue to go through the red LMAO.......

But yes it is getting worse, first it started off green is go, then just orange is go, then orange is go, then just red is go, then red is go :crazy: so the next stepp is complete chaos.......

Lou Girardin

22nd May 2004, 16:35

Posh Tourer :P

22nd May 2004, 16:59

And this thing with red lights,If you stop on an orange in AK you stand a very good chance of geting hit from behind.I would NEVER do it on my bike but when I'm in my Patrol and have to go into Penrose I make a point of stoping on the oranges.I need some panel work done on the old girl and sooner or later some Jaffa is going to come along and pay for it for me.
Can hardly wait,will even be able to chuck a fit in their face an get away with it :2thumbsup

lol...
Seriously, this almost happened to me going to work last sunday. I braked firmly, but not hard to stop at an orange. Luckily I was watching the guy behind, cos he was following at about 1 sec,and I saw the nose dive and both brakes lock up. If I hadnt let off the brakes I woulda been gone. I eventually blatantly went thru the red light cos I was that far into the intersection anyway.
This idiot then had the nerve to toot at me for stopping "dangerously" infront of him.... :finger:

dangerous

22nd May 2004, 17:49

"We focus on speeding because it works".
Hmmm. Riiiiiight! :crazy:

It DOES work........ it brings them in a lovely sum of money every week :angry:

Must be a nation-wide problem them because the wife and I couldn't believe how bad ChCh was at running red lights when we were there at xmas.

The thing I notice down here is the lack of green arrows that give the traffic a chance to turn right.
This means that the pricks that run the amber and red's (going straight) stop the on comming right turning traffic from going..... or it means that that the right turning car has to also run the red causing all sorts of havoc :ar15:

matthewt

22nd May 2004, 18:32

The thing I notice down here is the lack of green arrows that give the traffic a chance to turn right.
This means that the pricks that run the amber and red's (going straight) stop the on comming right turning traffic from going..... or it means that that the right turning car has to also run the red causing all sorts of havoc :ar15:

Whatever it is I don't remember it being that bad when I grew up there !!

dangerous

22nd May 2004, 19:08

Whatever it is I don't remember it being that bad when I grew up there !!

Na realy only started getting bad in the last 2-3 yrs.......... since all the bloody Aucklander's started comming down here :bleh: (ohhh..... this ones going to come back and bite me in the arse)

Zed

22nd May 2004, 19:37

I almost got a Liberace last night, when the car in front and I stopped for 4 red light runners and the moron behind us nearly didn't.
As for Police and LTSA talking heads, they're the road safety equivalent of Zed. They have unshakeable, blind faith that theirs is the one, true way.Lou, aside from your criticism of my faith- which is grossly incorrect, you do have a serious problem with authority...always bagging the powers that be like a real whiner!

Why don't the Police dept. make their employees sign some form of agreement that comes into effect if they decide to resign, so they can't make slanderous comments against the police and cause others to also rebel? I know the army does such when it comes to ex-officers discussing army business, etc, and writing books about their special assignments.

You're a dangerous man Lou...I've been following your police posts, thankfully I know better than to follow your one-sided opinions.

marty

22nd May 2004, 19:42

Lou, aside from your criticism of my faith- which is grossly incorrect, you do have a serious problem with authority...always bagging the powers that be like a real whiner!

Why don't the Police dept. make their employees sign some form of verbal agreement that comes into effect if they decide to leave resign, so they can't make slanderous comments against the police and cause others to also rebel? I know the army does such when it comes to ex-officers discussing army business, etc, and writing books about their special assignments.

You're a dangerous man Lou...I've been following your police posts, thankfully I know better than to follow your one-sided opinions.
as has been said before - lou was never a police officer. he was a traffic cop - remember how 'loved' they were?

and it has been noticed how quiet he becomes when the heat comes on in here.....

dangerous

22nd May 2004, 19:51

You're a dangerous man Lou...I've been following your police posts, thankfully I know better than to follow your one-sided opinions.

Na I think you are mixing him up for me ....I'm dangerous :rolleyes:
Mate, Lou was just cracking a funny...... It was bloody funny aye have a lough with us for christ sakes.... :Oops:

Zed

22nd May 2004, 20:27

Na I think you are mixing him up for me ....I'm dangerous :rolleyes:
Mate, Lou was just cracking a funny...... It was bloody funny aye have a lough with us for christ sakes.... :Oops:
I can laugh alright :lol: ...but what really cracks me up is how you think he's being funny while I take offence at what he said :pinch:

Anyway, I can relate to some of the road issues being raised on this thread- it can be a dangerous world out there dangerous!

Zed

speedpro

22nd May 2004, 20:56

[QUOTE=6Chris6]
Surely this is a much bigger contributer (sp?) to accidets than 11k over the limit.
[\QUOTE]

Interesting point - they say over half the accidents happen at intersections - yet 90%+ of the police activity is aimed at speeding? Go figure

Yes, but they were speeding when they had an accident at the intersection.

MikeL

22nd May 2004, 21:45

You're a dangerous man Lou...I've been following your police posts, thankfully I know better than to follow your one-sided opinions.

Time to bring back the Inquisition, don't you think, Zed? Can't allow all these dangerous ideas to start spreading...

pete376403

22nd May 2004, 23:36

Dominion Post today, front page article about drugs and schools. Comment by a Ministry Of Education student support manager "...schools have started to become the village policeman in certain areas. If they ring up and say we want the police to come in and clamp down on marijuana the police sometimes say this is not a priority " (Emphasis added)
Obviously there's no money in keeping school kids off drugs, eh? :angry2:

Zed

23rd May 2004, 10:42

Time to bring back the Inquisition, don't you think, Zed? Can't allow all these dangerous ideas to start spreading...
So you have nothing constructive to say about the topic at hand Mike? You felt it was a good opportunity to make another cheap shot at my faith- so this is how it's going to be with us now.

rodgerd

23rd May 2004, 10:53

Ye red lights around Wellington mean shit, I have had to sit at some lights and watch five or six cars go through the red before I could go.

The best a police car 4th in line through a red light.

The intersection of Tory and Courtney is ridiculous - I'm amazed no-one's been killed there recently. Well, actually, I'm not: pedestrians just accept they have to wait on the green while the dickheads running the red across Tory finish.

How about some red light cameras?

Skyryder

23rd May 2004, 15:45

The road toll & these police stats made TV3 news last night. The comment was to the effect that perhaps speed is not the main cause of our Death Toll problems and Police response was, "We focus on speeding because it works".
the Hmmm. Riiiiiight! :crazy:

Got this out of the ChCh Press (Saturday May 22) To date the Police have issued more than 880,000 speeding tickets this year. Last year Police issued 494,236 speed camera tickets and 389,057 officer-issued speeding tickets. The total value of last years speed camera fines was $42 million and officer related ticket for the same year topped $52 million. Add these two and you get $94 million. .............Police response was, "We focus on speeding because it works". Amen to that. Now we know why the LTSA are so keen on this Policy. I bet this is where their funding comes from for their "education" campagns. They set the policy in order to pay for it.
Skyryder

Lou Girardin

23rd May 2004, 15:55

marty

23rd May 2004, 21:41

PS.By the way Marty, when you and your friend formulate a rational argument I'll respond. All I've seen so far is mindless abuse. It's difficult to deal with those who don't agree with you, when you don't have fear on your side, isn't it.

my 'friend' and i have formulated plenty of rational arguments on here lou. we have also given appropriate and honest advice. and mindless abuse? come on lou, take what you give.

and no, i don't have anything to fear as i am: well informed, educated, lawful, and respectful, amongst other things.

i have never really had difficulty dealing with anyone lou, even narrow focussed, bitter, hang-em-out-to-dry ex cops-turned-lawyers/real estate agents/sales reps/investigators etc. it's amazing what a bit of humility, understanding and respect for their position can foster.

MikeL

23rd May 2004, 22:09

So you have nothing constructive to say about the topic at hand Mike? You felt it was a good opportunity to make another cheap shot at my faith- so this is how it's going to be with us now.

Oh dear. There goes my reputation as Mr Nice Guy.
Yes, you're right, the temptation was irresistible and I apologize. I didn't think the cut would be so deep. FWIW the target wasn't your faith, but your problem with any rebellion against authority or orthodoxy.
And to be fair, I didn't start the ad hominem attacks.

Lou Girardin

24th May 2004, 06:59

i have never really had difficulty dealing with anyone lou, even narrow focussed, bitter, hang-em-out-to-dry ex cops-turned-lawyers/real estate agents/sales reps/investigators etc. it's amazing what a bit of humility, understanding and respect for their position can foster.

You have been doing your research, haven't you? Although I have never been a lawyer or investigator.
As for being bitter, as I've said before, I left the MOT freely (well before the merger), never joined the Police, I've had very few tickets, never been arrested. I have no ulterior motive for disliking current Police policies and practices other than, to quote Dr Alan Wilkinson, they are persecuting our fellow New Zealanders for no better reason than their fixation on incorrect research. Abetted by a Government greedily eyeing the millions in fine revenue.
It's also clear, that as time passes, more and more information comes out that shows the futility of those policies and practices. As it does so, public respect for the Police falls further.

marty

24th May 2004, 08:41

You have been doing your research, haven't you? .no. some things just never change. :Police:

Hoon

24th May 2004, 11:20

I'm all for Police revenue gathering - just as long as they aint revenue gathering off me!!!
We all know that the Police are under funded and need more money. I'd rather they take that money from those who lack restraint instead of the rest of the NZ law-abiding public.
I've been done for doing 60-65kph and sure it sucks but the question you have to ask yourself is "Who's fault is it really? Yours or the Police?". It might be the Polices fault you got caught but it is always your fault for breaking the law and people need to understand that if they break the speed limit then they have to be prepared to accept the consequences when they get caught instead of crying "ohhh nahhh you cops are trying too hard now to catch me breaking the law!!!".

In fact when I see these Police figures it makes me happier. It means my tax/petrol/rego increases are minimized while those with less self control "take one for the team" :)

jrandom

24th May 2004, 11:47

In fact when I see these Police figures it makes me happier. It means my tax/petrol/rego increases are minimized while those with less self control "take one for the team" :)

Good point, but one would expect to see a corresponding increase in 'real' policing funded by this stuff. Instead we just see an ever-growing focus on extracting more and more revenue by this method. What are they spending it on? Commissioners' salaries?

When are the Powers That Be going to start spending the cash on fighting crime? Real crime, not arbitrary rules that tax the less-than-prudent.

Also, what the F*CK is with endlessly quoting annual 'road toll' figures without relating them back to actual levels of road use? They're meaningless! Gaaaah. Yes, I know we've already done the 'statistics thread' thing. There are just too many stupid people in this world for me not to comment on it occasionally.

scroter

24th May 2004, 13:23

Lou, aside from your criticism of my faith- which is grossly incorrect, you do have a serious problem with authority...always bagging the powers that be like a real whiner!

Why don't the Police dept. make their employees sign some form of agreement that comes into effect if they decide to resign, so they can't make slanderous comments against the police and cause others to also rebel? I know the army does such when it comes to ex-officers discussing army business, etc, and writing books about their special assignments.

You're a dangerous man Lou...I've been following your police posts, thankfully I know better than to follow your one-sided opinions.

and all the other quotes by you. have you got anything better to do than get wound up by others. none of these are meabt as a personal attack on you. you just fuck everyone off with all your attitude why dont you just get lost and go hang out with someone who actually likes you. if there are any. :Police: :finger:

FROSTY

24th May 2004, 13:57

one question Do the fines actuyally go into police cofferS???

pete376403

24th May 2004, 14:13

I think everything goes into the Consolidated fund - the government money bin.

Hoon

24th May 2004, 14:43

one question Do the fines actuyally go into police cofferS???

Yeah not directly but the more money the police/govt make means less they have to find from other sources.

marty

24th May 2004, 14:46

the police accounts are filled at the start of the year, from the consolidated fund, ltsa, acc, local bodies etc. no amount of ticket writing will fill them any more.

the reality is that ltsa/acc/tla's are more concerned about the delivery of hours into road safety, it is the police that are concerned about the number of tickets being written, as there is a correlation and statistical accountability attached to numbers. it is difficult to say - ' i delivered 100 hours of seatbelt enforcment to the waipa tla this week', if you have nothing to show for it. warnings are too easy to make up, so even a warning is recorded now (rego/time/place etc), and the gen is, if you have to record a warning, you might as well write a ticket....

Zed

24th May 2004, 15:41

and all the other quotes by you. have you got anything better to do than get wound up by others. none of these are meabt as a personal attack on you. you just fuck everyone off with all your attitude why dont you just get lost and go hang out with someone who actually likes you. if there are any. :Police: :finger:
Yeah this getting wound up by others is a real problem :thud:

So I take it you have nothing to add to the actual topic of this thread?

And watch your filthy mouth scoter!

White trash

24th May 2004, 15:45

..... why dont you just get lost and go hang out with someone who actually likes you. if there are any. :Police: :finger:

Met him in person, rode with him, talked to him. Thoroughly nice bloke all round.

I'll ride with you anytime, Zed.

But then that's not what this thread is about :)

sAsLEX

24th May 2004, 17:17

I'm all for Police revenue gathering - just as long as they aint revenue gathering off me!!!
We all know that the Police are under funded and need more money. I'd rather they take that money from those who lack restraint instead of the rest of the NZ law-abiding public.
:)

if they are under funded why do they have fancy new s comodores, when some of the real police have absolute shit boxes! It where the money is being spent that I see as an issue. I have no issue with money putting police on the beat making a real go at making NZ the safe country it is/was!

An intersesting stat would to be if more right handed people crashed, then we could ticket those that drive right/left handed and the road toll would go down(LTSA logic used here)

dangerous

24th May 2004, 18:29

why dont you just get lost and go hang out with someone who actually likes you. if there are any. :Police: :finger:

SETTLE DOWN MATE....... the same could be said for you after a comment like that :msn-wink:

You have 36 posts Zed has 702 if it went to the poll who do you think would be getting lost? :shake: :msn-wink:

marty

24th May 2004, 18:36

if they are under funded why do they have fancy new s comodores, when some of the real police have absolute shit boxes! It where the money is being spent that I see as an issue. I have no issue with money putting police on the beat making a real go at making NZ the safe country it is/was!

the difference between what an I car has to put up with and what a HP car does is huge. there are plenty of VY I cars, they just get shabbier and rougher much quicker, as they are 24 hour cars, with blood and vomit in the back seats, used as battering rams, kicked by drunks, keyed by dickheads. GDB cops generally don't like to have shiny new cars, as the scratches and dents stand out on them that much easier. have a look at the rear fenders and boot on a big city GDB patrol car - i just about guarantee it has dents from someone being arrested over the car.....

an HP car is an 8 hour limo, driven by only one person. the HP car is the HP cops office, the I car is one of the GDB cops tools.

dangerous

24th May 2004, 18:39

We all know that the Police are under funded and need more money

Oh yeh!!! I have a mate that started the beat in ChCh central he went 18 months with out a jacket and torn pants and this is through a cold wet winter like we have down here. Yet here we have HP coppers in brand new cars with leather jackets and all the trimmings...... go figger that one.

Today I was working in a building that looks down on the CBD cop shop and in one corner there was the HP verey shiny new cars and they were wasting time and money washing them when it was pissing down :doh:
And in the other corner was the 1990 VP comodores all looking rather second hand the markings all faded and ther was the odd early 2000 cars aswell also looking run down...... once again go figger :brick:

ps: just read Marty's last thread as he posted at the same time as me.... point noted

Lou Girardin

24th May 2004, 21:01

Fines do go into the consolidated fund, not to the Police. However, they do use projected income from fines in their argument for each years funding. If this income wasn't important to them then so much of Police funding wouldn't be focussed on traffic enforcement. An ascending spiral.
HO hoon, there is an awful lot of Kiwis who lack restraint apparently, nearly a million last year. A majority of the driving public.
How many people have to be persecuted before that it's conceded to be bad law. (or bad enforcement)?

Indo

25th May 2004, 17:36

Your full of hate toward the Police but you don't actually offer any solutions aside from a continual whine. Do you have a chip on your shoulder from the fact you couldn't become a real cop or something?

But what exactly do you want Lou?

No speed limit?
A speed limit thats not enforced?
A speed limit the applies to everyone but you?
A speed limit that relies solely upon the officers discretion?

Now given your contempt toward the Police i doubt you would trust the officer to be able to make such a judgement, plus it would end up in the law being applied unevenly which causes obvious problems. Is a cop instantly supposed to divine that your a safe driver in the 2 seconds or so he clocks your speed?

If we raised the driving age and made the test a hell of alot harder you could argue the speed limit be increased, but at the moment theres a large proportion of N.Z drivers who can't even drive safely at 100kmh let alone 110+.

Personally I prefer to have the police 'revenue gathering' or whatever you want to call it than some dickhead coming toward me around a blind corner on my side of the road as a result of driving at a speed he believes to be 'safe'.

Its a stupid tax more than anything.

marty

25th May 2004, 17:51

:2thumbsup :2thumbsup :2thumbsup

Zed

25th May 2004, 18:04

Met him in person, rode with him, talked to him. Thoroughly nice bloke all round.

I'll ride with you anytime, Zed.

But then that's not what this thread is about :)
You're too kind WT!

I think this scroter mis-spelled his nick? :bleh:

spudchucka

25th May 2004, 20:47

If one of Pudpluckers mates had seen me lanesplit to lose him I probably would have got the ticket.
Hey Lou, if you are going to call me names at least think of something original or at least witty. I'm sure you can do better than "pudplucker", put some effort in. Next time I want to see a decent insult, not some lame arse effort like this. I know you can do better if you just try a little harder.

spudchucka

25th May 2004, 20:51

I would much prefer it if they "policed" the red light runners :finger: a bit more as i've almost dropped the bike through pulling out then slamming on the anchors as some dickhead goes through 5 secs after the red.
Surely this is a much bigger contributer (sp?) to accidets than 11k over the limit.

Yes it is a big contributor to accidents, but the funny thing is that when they get a ticket for running a red they always insist that it was in fact green and suggest that the cops would be better to concentrate on all those dangerous speeders out there. Funny how everyones perspective is so different isn't it?

spudchucka

25th May 2004, 20:55

As for Police and LTSA talking heads, they're the road safety equivalent of Zed. They have unshakeable, blind faith that theirs is the one, true way.
And you are offering so many reasonable and effective alternatives. What would you have them do to improve on the current position?

spudchucka

25th May 2004, 21:06

You're being overly sensitive Zed, since when is being described as having blind, unshakeable faith a criticism? As for losing your freedom of expression after leaving a public job, have you heard of the whistleblowers legislation? Would the Rotorua rape enquiry have happened if that were the case? Would any of the scandals involving public figures have happened?
Opinions are one-sided, that's why we hold them. You have yours, I have mine.
I thought your faith puts you beyond doubts, why am I dangerous to you?
Lou
PS.By the way Marty, when you and your friend formulate a rational argument I'll respond. All I've seen so far is mindless abuse. It's difficult to deal with those who don't agree with you, when you don't have fear on your side, isn't it.
The Rotorua rade enquiry came about because a woman came forward with allegations - no other reason. There have been heaps of rational arguements that you have avoided. If you don't like being labled as a ex traffic cop who has a chip on his shoulder then show some evidence to disprove it. All I've ever seen you post on this forum in relation to police suggests that you have a personal barrow to push because of something that happened to you while you were a MOT traffic cop. Prove me wrong!

spudchucka

25th May 2004, 21:11

spudchucka

25th May 2004, 21:46

k14

25th May 2004, 21:57

I think some people are taking this the wrong way.

What I hate about the way in which speeding is policed is that it is said that by issuing speeding tickets this will directly decrease the road toll. But the fact that last year the amount of tickets increased by 70% or so and the road toll increased. So how is this increasing road safety. Yes, I agree that there needs to be a speed limit and people that go over this should get fined. But the way in which the higher powers are treating this as revenue generation is very obvious, ie the quotas.

I thought this was the main debate here? Am I wrong? Please set me straight if I am.

P.S. Don't resort to name calling. Spud has a job just like most of us and I am sure he does it well, it just happens to not be the most liked profession in the country, but I admire him for doing it.

scumdog

25th May 2004, 22:24

k14

25th May 2004, 22:27

scumdog

25th May 2004, 22:36

Good on ya mate!!

I'll second that, if you don't like our speed limits/laws/penalty combo go to Aussie (or almost anywhere else) and have a crack at riding however fast YOU feel you should be allowed to.
Somewhere in this world is a whinger complaining that he got "done" because the girl was only 10% younger than she should have been to have sex with him - I bet no one called LOU will step up to bat for him!!!
I know it's not a fair comparison Lou but the law specifies a figure and someone has to try and keep people to that figure - regardless whether it is underaged sex, speed, blood alcohol or whatever.
If you just whimper to wind people up then let us all know that's what you're doing, if you are serious it is about time you quit, we're all getting just a little bit bored with it,, O.K.? :weep:

scumdog

25th May 2004, 22:46

Have you got a link for those statistics?
k14, no I don't have a link, I have printed graphs and figures but don't possess a scanner. (plus I'm not sure I would be allowed to just print them off - sort of copywrie I suppose!)
Keep"shopping around" and you may find another source for the info I have, Cheer.

rodgerd

26th May 2004, 08:07

Yes it is a big contributor to accidents, but the funny thing is that when they get a ticket for running a red they always insist that it was in fact green and suggest that the cops would be better to concentrate on all those dangerous speeders out there. Funny how everyones perspective is so different isn't it?

Nailed it.

merv

26th May 2004, 08:09

Try this link on the LTSA website http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/research/annual-statistics-2002/docs/historical-table-1.pdf

Fatalities per 10,000 vehicles on the roads has dropped from 6.5 in 1951 to 1.5 in 2002.

rodgerd

26th May 2004, 08:10

What I hate about the way in which speeding is policed is that it is said that by issuing speeding tickets this will directly decrease the road toll. But the fact that last year the amount of tickets increased by 70% or so and the road toll increased. So how is this increasing road safety.

The toll has a declining trend - overall it's been falling as policing of booze and speed has tightened, and after the introduction of graduated licenses.

There will always be local upswings in the odd year, but the trend is down. Something which the "fuck you, I'll drive how I like" crowd ignore, and never get around to mentioning in years where it's a low.

merv

26th May 2004, 08:15

The main page for the historical stats is here http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/research/annual-statistics-2002/rep-accid-historical.html

There is motorcycle stuff there too.

riffer

26th May 2004, 09:00

The main page for the historical stats is here http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/research/annual-statistics-2002/rep-accid-historical.html

There is motorcycle stuff there too.
Bloody interesting the huge jump in 1973.

Was that the year they dropped the open road speed limit to 80km/r due to the oil crisis?

Actually, there was a huge jump in motorcycle deaths that year compared to other deaths.

Wouldn't have anything to do with the availability of a particular 2-stroke Japanese triple would it?

Hoon

26th May 2004, 10:55

Just so you understand, the police don't receive any additional funding in relation to the revenue gathered via traffic fines. They are underfunded regardless of the revenue gathered on behalf of the Govt.

Yep I know they don't get the money directly but it is still revenue for the government which they spend as they see fit. Whether they decide to spend that money on Police, roads, public health it doesn't really matter to me as long as it is benefiting the country and didn't come from my pocket! This is the point I was trying to make that Police revenue gathering is a win win situation for those of us that don't speed (or accept their punishment when they do speed instead of blaming the system) and I actually prefer this to blanket revenue gathering schemes like tax, rego, petrol which I cannot avoid no matter how well behaved I am.

If the issue is about the Police lying saying it reduces the road toll then yep that sounds like a shit poor excuse to me but I would say the same thing if I were in their position knowing the general public aren't keen on the revenue gathering and are even less keen on tax/rego/petrol increases.

merv

26th May 2004, 12:27

Bloody interesting the huge jump in 1973.

Was that the year they dropped the open road speed limit to 80km/r due to the oil crisis?

Actually, there was a huge jump in motorcycle deaths that year compared to other deaths.

Wouldn't have anything to do with the availability of a particular 2-stroke Japanese triple would it?

Oil crisis speed reduction didn't hit until 1974. In 1973 bike sales were up, the price of gas dropped from 49c per gallon to 48c under price control and we all thought we were in heaven. The MachIII had been introduced a couple of years beforehand. At the end of 1973 helmets became compulsory in the 50k areas too, before that when I was at Uni we could rip down the road for a ride to dry our hair after a shower (had hair then). Perhaps everyone was thinking liberal and were just made buggers being the anti-vietnam protest era - drinking age dropped to 20 from 21 too didn't it?

Stats look similar in a way to 1981 or so when sales were up again (and a certain shop Trash talks about became famous for its racing efforts) so its probably more related to the number of young guys on bikes at the time, which would have been in two waves - 70's era and post oil crisis early 80's before cheap second hand cars became available around 1989.

marty

26th May 2004, 14:12

Yep I know they don't get the money directly but it is still revenue for the government which they spend as they see fit. Whether they decide to spend that money on Police, roads, public health it doesn't really matter to me as long as it is benefiting the country and didn't come from my pocket! This is the point I was trying to make that Police revenue gathering is a win win situation for those of us that don't speed (or accept their punishment when they do speed instead of blaming the system) and I actually prefer this to blanket revenue gathering schemes like tax, rego, petrol which I cannot avoid no matter how well behaved I am.

If the issue is about the Police lying saying it reduces the road toll then yep that sounds like a shit poor excuse to me but I would say the same thing if I were in their position knowing the general public aren't keen on the revenue gathering and are even less keen on tax/rego/petrol increases.
1. it ALL comes from your (and our) pockets.
2. the police budget for the whole country is less than the health budget for one DHB (midland for eg)
3. having worked in the environment, i will say that enforcment assists the reduction in the road toll - ask any firey or ambo how much trauma from open road car crashes has been reduced since 2000 (HP inception). i certainly wouldn't say that anyone is lying about it

prior to a dedicated highway enforcment, i was attending, on average, 2 fatals a month on SH1 north and south of Cambridge. there are still fatals here of course, but now they seem to be mostly (in)attention related, and simply don't have the speed component as much as they used to.

if you have ever witnessed a post mortem, and seen where the aorta was torn as the heart couldn't decellerate as quickly as the rest of the body (happens to the brain/liver/spleen etc too), and the person bled to death from it (in about 30 seconds) then you'll know what i mean.

Drunken Monkey

26th May 2004, 16:02

3. having worked in the environment, i will say that enforcment assists the reduction in the road toll - ask any firey or ambo how much trauma from open road car crashes has been reduced since 2000 (HP inception). i certainly wouldn't say that anyone is lying about it

*ahem*

I tried to stay out of this, but that was one of the worst mis-uses of 'stats' used in this thread so far, Marty. The reduction in accident trauma in road accidents is directly attributable to the increase in car safety devices - Even the fricken LTSA would agree to that. It's got little to do with traffic enforcement.
Some of you just don't get the _bloody point_. :brick: It's not that people like Lou or myself think we shouldn't get fined for speeding - we don't like being lied to and we don't like an already under-strength police force putting their energy into traffic infringements when they should be putting their fricken energy into reducing violent crime, theft, burglary and home fricken invasions!!!!!

Stick it to The Man, Lou. Power to the people. :rockon:

Slim

26th May 2004, 16:22

The reduction in accident trauma in road accidents is directly attributable to the increase in car safety devices - Even the fricken LTSA would agree to that. It's got little to do with traffic enforcement.
It's not that people like Lou or myself think we shouldn't get fined for speeding - we don't like being lied to and we don't like an already under-strength police force putting their energy into traffic infringements when they should be putting their fricken energy into reducing violent crime, theft, burglary and home fricken invasions!!!!!
Which is pretty much what I was going to say.

k14

26th May 2004, 17:20

*ahem*

I tried to stay out of this, but that was one of the worst mis-uses of 'stats' used in this thread so far, Marty. The reduction in accident trauma in road accidents is directly attributable to the increase in car safety devices - Even the fricken LTSA would agree to that. It's got little to do with traffic enforcement.
Some of you just don't get the _bloody point_. :brick: It's not that people like Lou or myself think we shouldn't get fined for speeding - we don't like being lied to and we don't like an already under-strength police force putting their energy into traffic infringements when they should be putting their fricken energy into reducing violent crime, theft, burglary and home fricken invasions!!!!!

Stick it to The Man, Lou. Power to the people. :rockon:

Thank you, thats what I was trying to say aswell, I just suck at trying to make a point and arguing.
:rockon:

Indo

26th May 2004, 18:16

"The reduction in accident trauma in road accidents is directly attributable to the increase in car safety devices "

Wrong, it has every thing to do with speed reduction. Car safety devices work to an extent, but they arent gonna save you at a head on at 120kmh +.
Like it or hate it, its pretty undeniable that the introduction of speed cameras and a decent HP has reduced top end speeds considerably.

"we don't like an already under-strength police force putting their energy into traffic infringements when they should be putting their fricken energy into reducing violent crime, theft, burglary and home fricken invasions!!!!!"

I would love to take all the people who use lines like this to the aftermath of a fatal crash, maybe when you see bodies torn apart into 8 or so different peices you might stop viewing traffic crashes as a trivial matter. In 2003 there were 460 deaths and around 14,000 serious injuries as a result of traffic crashes. How many people were killed as a result of burglarys, thefts and home invasions?. Not saying they aren't just as important but there are people no better than criminals on the road too, and the total social cost to the country as a result of traffic crashes is huge.

Warnings simply don't work, tickets no matter how much they piss you off do.

marty

26th May 2004, 18:38

*ahem*

I tried to stay out of this, but that was one of the worst mis-uses of 'stats' used in this thread so far, Marty. The reduction in accident trauma in road accidents is directly attributable to the increase in car safety devices - Even the fricken LTSA would agree to that. It's got little to do with traffic enforcement.
Some of you just don't get the _bloody point_. :brick: It's not that people like Lou or myself think we shouldn't get fined for speeding - we don't like being lied to and we don't like an already under-strength police force putting their energy into traffic infringements when they should be putting their fricken energy into reducing violent crime, theft, burglary and home fricken invasions!!!!!

Stick it to The Man, Lou. Power to the people. :rockon:my post had nothing to do with stats, and everything to do with personal observations, personal experience, and until a lot of the 'answer for everything' people on this forum have those experiences, then i expect that we will continue to see bleating, with no real answers or suggestions as to how things can be improved.

Drunken Monkey

26th May 2004, 20:06

Wrong, it has every thing to do with speed reduction. Car safety devices work to an extent, but they arent gonna save you at a head on at 120kmh +.
Like it or hate it, its pretty undeniable that the introduction of speed cameras and a decent HP has reduced top end speeds considerably.

[snip]

I would love to take all the people who use lines like this to the aftermath of a fatal crash, maybe when you see bodies torn apart into 8 or so different peices you might stop viewing traffic crashes as a trivial matter. In 2003 there were 460 deaths and around 14,000 serious injuries as a result of traffic crashes. How many people were killed as a result of burglarys, thefts and home invasions?. Not saying they aren't just as important but there are people no better than criminals on the road too, and the total social cost to the country as a result of traffic crashes is huge.

Warnings simply don't work, tickets no matter how much they piss you off do.

1 - It's an undeniable fact that the increase in people surviving head on and offset head-on accidents is specifically to do with improved crumple zones, restraining belts and air-bags. More people drive these cars than ever before. Fatals were common 50 years ago in slower accidents because of poor energy transfer through the chassis, poor restraint and dangerous windscreens - despite the fact that the cars were travelling SLOWER. The only reason there were less deaths is because the fleet was a lot smaller! DUH! Road death tolls all around the western world increased from the fifties as the fleets increased in size. The recent reductions in deaths (there are still increasing numbers of accidents) are purely due to the advent of commonly available car safety devices. The decrease in death tolls is directly proportionate to the higher speeds cars can collide and still protect their occupants!
If you disagree with this, put your money where your mouth is and hop into a 1/2 star saftey rated car and have a head on at 95 with a 5 star rated car and see how you fare! Hell, why do you think motorcyclists are at so much bloody risk? I'm sure there are plenty of previously-injured-in-auto-accident-KB'ers on this board who would take great offense at you lecturing them that they were only hurt because they were speeding - often they were not!

Fact: Improved safety device (an automated pop-up roll bar) in a Mercedes Benz saved a man's life. This is a well known video where a driver on the autobahn rolled his Merc at over 200km/h and walked away from the accident - literally.
Fact: Family of 4 survives combined head on collision speed of an estimated 140km/h+ in Australia driving a Mitsubishi Diamante. All directly attiributable to the inherent safety features of the car. This incident was part of Mitsubishi's standard safety pamphlet. Are you calling them liars?

The list goes on ad infinitum.

Wait a minute...these were both over you're magic 120km/h!!!! By all rights in the world of physics according to Indo, all these people must, in fact, be walking ghosts!

2 - Oh yeah, real classy. Play the emotion card! Whoooo, that's real constructive...Hey right back at ya: why don't you repeat that fricken mantra to yourself next time some pricks break into your home, nick your TV and beat up the missus while you're out...then you can sit around and jerk off while you wait for the cops who never show up.

sAsLEX

26th May 2004, 20:13

"The reduction in accident trauma in road accidents is directly attributable to the increase in car safety devices "

Wrong, it has every thing to do with speed reduction.
Dissagree with you mate, the safety of cars has increased at such a pace that not only is crash protection through crumple zones, airbags and pyrotechnic pretensioners and other such devices been saving lives, but advances in other areas have seen handling stopping and all other aspects of car improve.

Watch Top Gear and you will see alot of modern sport cars are getting near 1g of lateral grip, through tyres suspension adn electronic wizardry. How many car used to achieve this, better grip and handling reduces the probabilty of you losing control( other than if your a plonker and crash off a straight piece of road, or drive beyond your vision and get sprung by things mid corner!).
I always compare the difference between the cars I have had ( 83 sunny 1.3lt, 91 levin GT apex) I feel much safer in the newer car due to above mention things. Its legal for any car reg/wf to go the open road speed and yet in some this is alot more dangerous than others.

The speed limit has been at one level for a while now and yet the quality of some/most of the vehicles on the road has increased! Maybe this is why there is a worlwide decreasing road toll trend! rather than the targeting of speeders

spudchucka

26th May 2004, 20:22

You ARE wrong - the total road toll HAS gone up but not by anywhere near the percentage/amount that vehicle numbers and km driven have gone up, plus if you don't like getting a speeding ticket - DON'T SPEED!!! it's that simple!
Stats are misleading - everyone with half a brain nows this but they still use them to push their own particular barrow. This is true no matter which side of an argument you sit. Bottom line - don't take stats as being gospel.

spudchucka

26th May 2004, 20:25

spudchucka

26th May 2004, 20:46

Dissagree with you mate, the safety of cars has increased at such a pace that not only is crash protection through crumple zones, airbags and pyrotechnic pretensioners and other such devices been saving lives, but advances in other areas have seen handling stopping and all other aspects of car improve.

Watch Top Gear and you will see alot of modern sport cars are getting near 1g of lateral grip, through tyres suspension adn electronic wizardry. How many car used to achieve this, better grip and handling reduces the probabilty of you losing control( other than if your a plonker and crash off a straight piece of road, or drive beyond your vision and get sprung by things mid corner!).
I always compare the difference between the cars I have had ( 83 sunny 1.3lt, 91 levin GT apex) I feel much safer in the newer car due to above mention things. Its legal for any car reg/wf to go the open road speed and yet in some this is alot more dangerous than others.

The speed limit has been at one level for a while now and yet the quality of some/most of the vehicles on the road has increased! Maybe this is why there is a worlwide decreasing road toll trend! rather than the targeting of speeders
Why do arguements on this issue always tend to be so black & white?? Surely the improvement in vehicle saftey standards, the reduction in open road speeds through HP enforcement, better roads etc etc have all had an impact in the overall reduction of the road toll. The important thing is that on average it is improving, despite the increasing number of vehicles and untrained drivers on our roads. Quite remarkable in my opinion.

rodgerd

26th May 2004, 20:50

reducing violent crime, theft, burglary and home fricken invasions!!!!!

I'll say it again: are you more likely to be injured in violent crime, home invasions, or road crashes?

rodgerd

26th May 2004, 20:53

2 - Oh yeah, real classy. Play the emotion card! Whoooo, that's real constructive...Hey right back at ya: why don't you repeat that fricken mantra to yourself next time some pricks break into your home, nick your TV and beat up the missus while you're out...then you can sit around and jerk off while you wait for the cops who never show up.

For someone who claims to dislike lies, generalisations, and missing the point, you seem awfully keen to avoid answering the question: which is more likely? The injury/death in a road smash, or the home invaders?

rodgerd

26th May 2004, 20:56

The important thing is that on average it is improving, despite the increasing number of vehicles and untrained drivers on our roads. Quite remarkable in my opinion.

An increasing number of untrained drivers? If anything, the incentives for new drivers to do advanced driver training/defensive driving/et al probably mean there are fewer untrained drivers, as a proportion of the total, than there were 20 years ago, when the cop who drank with your dad would give you a license.

spudchucka

26th May 2004, 21:16

An increasing number of untrained drivers? If anything, the incentives for new drivers to do advanced driver training/defensive driving/et al probably mean there are fewer untrained drivers, as a proportion of the total, than there were 20 years ago, when the cop who drank with your dad would give you a license.
I think there is pretty much no training for most new drivers and this has been the case for a long time. Defensive driving courses are a load of old wank, (I've done one), advanced driver training would be desirable but only when the driver is at a stage beyond that of the average learner. My point in relation to untrained drivers is that it is far too easy to get a licence in this country and there are far too many cheap, high performance cars available to what are essentially "untrained drivers", (what young fellas these days are content learning to drive in a Toyota Corolla or such. They all want the Evo or WRX and there is plenty of finance available for them to get it). This situation to me is just a recipe for road chaos

Drunken Monkey

26th May 2004, 21:35

For someone who claims to dislike lies, generalisations, and missing the point, you seem awfully keen to avoid answering the question: which is more likely? The injury/death in a road smash, or the home invaders?

FFS you can't ask me a question then post immediately after and accuse me of not coming to the party! If you read earlier, the question was posted in a rhetoric manner, not unlike my own. I'm not expecting Indo to justify himself further - he has a right to his opinions and observations and if he's a man of principle he'll probably stick to his guns. You, on the other hand, are a snake.

:brick:

And to answer your question - It's all down to a matter of numbers. There a millions of 'driver hours' out there, and people make mistakes. Accidents happen, and some injuries and loss of life are unavoidable NO MATTER WHAT WE TRY TO AVOID IT. There is an element of risk we all assume when we get on the road - hell, even when we cross the road.
Home invasions, assaults, 'etc' are inexcusable acts commited by true scum of the earth.
So I don't give a flying fart which is more likely to result in an injury or death: I want more community policing and less _blind_, excessive enforcement of some magic 11km/h over the speed limit instant death point, hidden behind a web of blatant lies and misinformation.

marty

26th May 2004, 22:44

merv

27th May 2004, 08:14

I'm just taking a punt here but when did those triple Kwaka's come out, the ones that went like shit but wouldn't turn? 1973??

I already talked about this on a previous page. The original MachIII hit NZ around late 1970 i.e. a couple of years before the start of the '73 crash season. However, given the relative cost of things they weren't exactly sold in huge numbers so I doubt they were responsible for any huge rise in stats. The real issue will have been I am sure that many young guys got into bikes then and were crashing their T250s, CB350s and many things cheaper and smaller as well including trail bikes which were very much the go then.

Drunken Monkey

27th May 2004, 08:34

COMMUNITY POLICING???????????

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

that went out about 5 years ago. they used to teach it at college, but it didn't make enough money......

D-f'n-uh! - My point exactly! Proper Policing is not about making money. Running ticket fatories is.
So in effect you have just gone back on your own point of view? You previously used your accident scene experience to side with the proponents of blind speed enforcement, now you dare to laugh at me and tell me community policing is pants because it doesn't make any money? I'm not wasting my time any further with a circular discussion.

riffer

27th May 2004, 08:40

I'm just taking a punt here but when did those triple Kwaka's come out, the ones that went like shit but wouldn't turn? 1973??
Yeah Spud, that was my first thought. They came out in 1969, which made me think they might have been hitting the 2nd hand market around then.

My old neighbour has a concourse one. I've always thought it might be fun to try. He has a ZX-12 and a GT750 turbo as well, and said the H2 was the trickiest to ride due to its interesting cornering.

spudchucka

27th May 2004, 14:36

D-f'n-uh! - My point exactly! Proper Policing is not about making money. Running ticket fatories is.
So in effect you have just gone back on your own point of view? You previously used your accident scene experience to side with the proponents of blind speed enforcement, now you dare to laugh at me and tell me community policing is pants because it doesn't make any money? I'm not wasting my time any further with a circular discussion.
There are still actually plenty of Community Police stations operating. However the work they do tends to be mostly PR - feelgood type stuff like school and old folks home visits. They do a lot of good work in terms of educating the public in crime prevention matters but more of them won't help catch more burglers. What is needed is more front line general duties cops working 24 / 7 out on the street keeping a lid on their local trash can. A strong and effective police force working on shutting down criminals may not make much for the Govt but it sure as hell can save a shit load of money for the community by reducing the effects of crime. What we need is a Govt with some balls to make policing a priority, cough up the money needed to do the job properly and to keep the criminals in jail where they belong.

Drunken Monkey

27th May 2004, 14:44

There are still actually plenty of Community Police stations operating. However the work they do tends to be mostlt PR - feelgood type stuff like school and old folks home visits. They do a lot of good work in terms of educating the public in crime prevention matters but more of them won't help catch more burglers. What is needed is more front line general duties cops working 24 / 7 out on the street keeping a lid on their local trash can.

Ta for clearing up the technical differences in the departments. I was trying to say 'not' Highway Patrol.

A strong and effective police force working on shutting down criminals may not make much for the Govt but it sure as hell can save a shit load of money for the community by reducing the effects of crime. What we need is a Govt with some balls to make policing a priority, cough up the money needed to do the job properly and to keep the criminals in jail where they belong

You've got my vote.

Lou Girardin

27th May 2004, 21:00

Indo, I'll choose option 3, it worked well for many decades. especially from 1984 till 2000 when the decline in the road toll was reversed with the advent of 'rigid enforcement'. A side benefit of this would be a reversal in the decline in public approval of the Police, now facing 66% approval instead of 90% plus as it used to be. They haven't even made the top 5 trusted professions in the latest Readers Digest poll.
As for a wish list; this is what I'd like to see;
Traffic enforcement to be carried out by a separately funded body whether part of the Police or not.
Restore cops discretion, do away with ticket quotas.
Remove roadside licence suspension, this should be the provence of a court. Power of arrest will suffice if a driver needs to be removed from the road. Then the facts of the matter can be tested quickly by a court.
Replace speed cameras with humans.
Have speed limits reflect the risk factor of given roads. Eg. higher limits for good, less travelled roads; lower, stricter limits for high risk areas such as school zones, shopping areas.
Heavier enforcement of intersection and vehicle positioning offences.
More bikes used in enforcement.
Tougher driving tests with at least 15-20 hours professional instruction required.
Better qualified and trained driver testers run by a Govt. agency, not a private company. ( An ex-teacher with 3 days training does not a tester make.)
A road safety body that utilises the best research available, not just that which fits their Political masters wishes. ( Monash University)
10 yearly retesting at licence renewal for all.

The pro-police camp have made a lot of personal attacks, but have not come up with figures to substantiate their arguments. Tell us, in terms of fatalities per 10,000 vehicles and per 100,000 km's, how the road toll has improved since 2000 til now.

Spuds argument is self defeating; more, extremely well funded, traffic cops haven't lowered the road toll, yet more general duties cops are going to lower the crime rate. How?
They need to think quality, not quantity.

Now, I am a whinger, whiner, hater in some peoples eyes. Yet, I'm in good company; Dr. Alan Wilkinson, whose research has been agreed with by the University of Canberra, Prof. John Bailey; whose, politically incorrect, but accurate research has been ignored by Govts for 20+ years. And all the others, Graeme Barlow, Mark Petch and everyone who believes that the current policies are more about income than saving lives. If it wasn't, why are local bodies greedily eyeing speed camera revenue. Waitakere City now want to run their own speed camera operation. Only to save lives of course.
But they don't want to have to fund a full Traffic dept. though.

Drunken Monkey

27th May 2004, 21:03

spudchucka

27th May 2004, 21:44

Spuds argument is self defeating; more, extremely well funded, traffic cops haven't lowered the road toll, yet more general duties cops are going to lower the crime rate. How?
They need to think quality, not quantity.

Again you shoot off at the mouth and don't offer any reasonable alternatives. How would you suggest the police improve quality without the quantity?

If you ever had any actual experience as a front line cop your logic might carry some weight but since you are just an ex traffic cop from the MOT era I'm not surprised by your complete ignorance on the subject of reucing crime. Cops on the street 24 / 7 getting in the faces of active crims, stopping their cars, knowing where they are, what they are doing and who they are doing it to is the key to any crime reduction strategy. You can be as smart and have all the best intel, (by the way you can't gather intel without cops on the street) possible but without the cops on the street all initiatives are futile. Its like fighting a war without infantry, eventually someone has just got to get in and do the dirty work.

I'm all for a seperate traffic dept but for the time being traffic enforcement is the domain of the police and they are duty bound to uphold the law and to prosecute those who flaut it. Don't forget that burglars and thieves all drive cars as well, traffic enforcement is just another tool to use to shut down their criminal activities. I know you will never see the value of traffic enforcement in this regard because you were never a cop and your understanding only goes as far as some dumb shmuck getting a ticket for 11 kph over the limit. Jail is the place for criminals and there is more than one way to skin a cat.

scumdog

27th May 2004, 21:44

I'll say it again: are you more likely to be injured in violent crime, home invasions, or road crashes?
Just to put a different slant on things, my stepson was injured in a crash, the car he was a passenger in left the Highcliff road near Dunedin and went arse over tit down the steep hill.
He was the most seriously injured with his injuries including broken verterbrae.
Now here's my point: we all think "aw yeah, a few days in hospital, cost of vehicle recovery etc, can't cost too much" - well already I have seen the building up of costs, i.e. the expense of fire/ambo/police attending the scene, the hospital staff tied up with the A&E side of things, the clothing that had to be cut from the injured, the property that was lost/damaged in the crash, the travel expense/lost wages of family members that rushed to the hospital, the extra meals/parking fees etc for them, the scanning costs for the injured, the specialists and surgeons costs, the ongoing medication/physiotherapy, loss of income by the injured, ACC payouts etc etc etc.
No wonder the Govt wants to see the crash rate drop, and guess what, the crash was the result of somebody driving TOO FAST!!!!!
It was just one of those crashes that hardly gets heard of outside of the province, JUST a one vehicle/three injured crash
Eff all you bastards that "I'll drive/ride how I like" :2guns:

spudchucka

27th May 2004, 21:51

Just to put a different slant on things, my stepson was injured in a crash, the car he was a passenger in left the Highcliff road near Dunedin and went arse over tit down the steep hill.
He was the most seriously injured with his injuries including broken verterbrae.
Now here's my point: we all think "aw yeah, a few days in hospital, cost of vehicle recovery etc, can't cost too much" - well already I have seen the building up of costs, i.e. the expense of fire/ambo/police attending the scene, the hospital staff tied up with the A&E side of things, the clothing that had to be cut from the injured, the property that was lost/damaged in the crash, the travel expense/lost wages of family members that rushed to the hospital, the extra meals/parking fees etc for them, the scanning costs for the injured, the specialists and surgeons costs, the ongoing medication/physiotherapy, loss of income by the injured, ACC payouts etc etc etc.
No wonder the Govt wants to see the crash rate drop, and guess what, the crash was the result of somebody driving TOO FAST!!!!!
It was just one of those crashes that hardly gets heard of outside of the province, JUST a one vehicle/three injured crash
Eff all you bastards that "I'll drive/ride how I like" :2guns:
Sadly it often takes an experience like this for people to learn how fragile humans are and the costs involved in vehicle crashes. Crashes like this happen very frequently and it is usually young guys hooning with their mates, (I'm not saying this was the case with your son).

Sk8r_Boi_

27th May 2004, 21:58

Yeah ive sat at red lights for about 10 or so minutes i just give up after awhile and turn around and go a different why.........they so need to do something about that aye

Indo

28th May 2004, 17:57

Indo, I'll choose option 3

Err option three, was a speed limit that only applies to you, Lou.

They haven't even made the top 5 trusted professions in the latest Readers Digest poll

Readers digest? thats like me pulling stats outa the womens weekly...

Restore cops discretion, do away with ticket quotas.

Agree.

Remove roadside licence suspension, this should be the provence of a court. Power of arrest will suffice if a driver needs to be removed from the road.

Unless you increase the offences for which a driver can be arrested, this would only result in many more idiots offending to the extreme on the roads.

Replace speed cameras with humans.

Why, less cops on the motorway = more cops fighting crime on the streets.

Have speed limits reflect the risk factor of given roads. Eg. higher limits for good, less travelled roads; lower, stricter limits for high risk areas such as school zones, shopping areas.

This would be nice if we had drivers who actually paid attention to road signs. I think the KISS principle applies here.

Heavier enforcement of intersection and vehicle positioning offences.

Agree, red light runners piss me off no end. I think setting red light cameras at all major intersections would be a good start.

Tougher driving tests with at least 15-20 hours professional instruction required.Better qualified and trained driver testers run by a Govt. agency, not a private company. ( An ex-teacher with 3 days training does not a tester make.).

Agree, the tests here are a joke. Its disturbing thou also the amount of people who find the current tests to hard, don't bother to even sit them and still continue to drive without licenses. The courts have to take a much harder line on unlicensed and forbidden drivers, at the moment the penalities are a joke. Plus international licenses should only be accepted from certain countries, those with rules and driving tests similar to our own.

Now, I am a whinger, whiner, hater in some peoples eyes.

Not really, in mine your just ignorant and bitter. You have some irrational hatred of Police, yet have no knowledge or experience of what Police in this country actually do. I would love you to spend a day in a car with a general duties cop in a place like Glen Innes, Otara or Mangere, the sad fact is you and most other cop haters would probably be too scared to even get out of the car.

.

marty

28th May 2004, 23:13

i have added the numbers for ease of reply....

(1) Indo, I'll choose option 3, it worked well for many decades. especially from 1984 till 2000 when the decline in the road toll was reversed with the advent of 'rigid enforcement'.

(2) A side benefit of this would be a reversal in the decline in public approval of the Police, now facing 66% approval instead of 90% plus as it used to be. They haven't even made the top 5 trusted professions in the latest Readers Digest poll.

As for a wish list; this is what I'd like to see;
(3) Traffic enforcement to be carried out by a separately funded body whether part of the Police or not.

(4) Restore cops discretion, do away with ticket quotas.

(5) Remove roadside licence suspension, this should be the provence of a court. Power of arrest will suffice if a driver needs to be removed from the road. Then the facts of the matter can be tested quickly by a court.

(6) Replace speed cameras with humans.

(7) Have speed limits reflect the risk factor of given roads. Eg. higher limits for good, less travelled roads; lower, stricter limits for high risk areas such as school zones, shopping areas.

(8) Heavier enforcement of intersection and vehicle positioning offences.

(9) More bikes used in enforcement.

(10) Tougher driving tests with at least 15-20 hours professional instruction required.

(11) Better qualified and trained driver testers run by a Govt. agency, not a private company. ( An ex-teacher with 3 days training does not a tester make.

(12) A road safety body that utilises the best research available, not just that which fits their Political masters wishes. ( Monash University)

(13) 10 yearly retesting at licence renewal for all.

(14) The pro-police camp have made a lot of personal attacks, but have not come up with figures to substantiate their arguments. Tell us, in terms of fatalities per 10,000 vehicles and per 100,000 km's, how the road toll has improved since 2000 til now.

(15) Spuds argument is self defeating; more, extremely well funded, traffic cops haven't lowered the road toll, yet more general duties cops are going to lower the crime rate. How?
They need to think quality, not quantity.

(16) Now, I am a whinger, whiner, hater in some peoples eyes. Yet, I'm in good company; Dr. Alan Wilkinson, whose research has been agreed with by the University of Canberra, Prof. John Bailey; whose, politically incorrect, but accurate research has been ignored by Govts for 20+ years. And all the others, Graeme Barlow, Mark Petch and everyone who believes that the current policies are more about income than saving lives.

(17) If it wasn't, why are local bodies greedily eyeing speed camera revenue. Waitakere City now want to run their own speed camera operation. Only to save lives of course. But they don't want to have to fund a full Traffic dept. though.
Lou. you obviously put some time into your argument, so i'll put some into mine .

(1) road toll - 1998/501, 1999/508, 2000/462, 2001/455, 2002/404, 2003 (at a comparable date to today)/185, 2004(to date)/161. looks like a drop to me, not a 'decline in the road toll was reversed with the advent of 'rigid enforcement' (HP inception Dec 2000)

(2) public approval of the police - began declining the moment the police and MOT merged. Tell me, did the MOT have quotas?

(3) separate enforcement - sort of worked once, it is too entwined now. i used to get called to MOT units being outnumbered, outwitted, outsized, outoftheirdepth all the time - can't see how that would change.

(4) cops still have discretion - it is an integral part of individuality. there are plenty of stories from guys on here being let off for ridiculous speeds. ticket quotas are bullshit, there is of course to pressure to justify a days work (as there is in any career), but expected contact rates are clearly defined.

(5) roadside suspension is currently only for non-subjective matters - EBA and speed. surely the roadside suspension limits are set at reasonable levels. you cannot be roadside suspended for dangerous/reckless driving, as that needs to be tested by the court. Arrest is a serious infringment on a persons rights, and for summary matters they should be bailed at the earliest opportunity (this is well tested by case law, Bill of Rights Act etc), and the holding (not bailing) of someone simply for the purpose of removing them from the road for speeding would be frowned upon i am sure. and tested in court quickly? in the current court system?

(6) speed camera have slowed me down. I have had one camera ticket in my private car since their inception (61 in a 50), and i paid it without grumbling too much. if it's good enough for me, then it's good enough for you.

(7) what about a school zone on a good, less travelled road? or a shopping area just off a motorway off ramp? KISS. or encourage toll roads that are engineered to high speed use (although route PJK in tauranga, which is huge and can easily be ridden safely at speed) has a speed limit of 80kmh.

(8) no argument, although at the expense of what? what about if your house next to the intersection has been burgled, and some cop is sitting there writing tickets, not interested in your burglary?

(9) old Ministry speak going on here. i'm all for it myself, (who would run from a blackbird or busa patrol bike?)

(10) great idea, but who pays? 20 hours @ $40 an hour? countries that have driver training like this (Finland etc) have low road tolls, but they also have unbelievably strict road rules - lifetime disqualification/heavy prison for EBA/Dangerous etc.

(11) this could be said for just about any sector of the tertiary education sector at the moment, and is indicitave of the 'saving money to give to the poor' attitude of the current govt.

(12) the AA (last time i checked they were independent) supports roadside suspension, and in fact recently supported dropping the suspension speed to 40k over, and EBA to 0.6 (currently at 0.8).

(13) no problem with that. user pays i presume. is that testing for all classes? currently at around $100 for a basic car, $100 for bike, say $200 each for all truck classes, goodness knows how much for self laying tracks.....

(14) i'm not sure how these go together, but (a) i am sure those stats are there somewhere and (b) personally i'm getting bored with the name calling and pathetic nature of some of the comments on here.

(15) yes they have, yes they will. it called broken windows theory, and it is well documented, well proven (eg: Rudolph.W Guiliani, 'Leadership', Mirimax Books New York 2002)

(16) yup. but comparing yourself to world-class researchers? and graeme barlow and mark petch are only magazine editors with a public soapbox.

(17) hadn't heard this one. see number (6). if you don't mind paying, then just speed right past.....

spudchucka

29th May 2004, 13:37

The pro-police camp have made a lot of personal attacks, but have not come up with figures to substantiate their arguments. Tell us, in terms of fatalities per 10,000 vehicles and per 100,000 km's, how the road toll has improved since 2000 til now.

Lou to answer your question it seems that stats regarding M/V crashes do actually indicate a reducing road toll per 10,000 vehicles and per 100,000 population, go figure.

Check for yourself at-
http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/research/annual-statistics-2002/docs/historical-table-2.pdf

1996: Deaths / 100,000 population = 12.3, deaths / 10000 vehicles = 1.9
1997: Deaths / 100,000 population = 12.4, deaths / 10000 vehicles = 2.0
1998: Deaths / 100,000 population = 11.5, deaths / 10000 vehicles = 1.8
1999: Deaths / 100,000 population = 11.4, deaths / 10000 vehicles = 1.7
2000: Deaths / 100,000 population = 10.0, deaths / 10000 vehicles = 1.5
2001: Deaths / 100,000 population = 10.3, deaths / 10000 vehicles = 1.5
2002: Deaths / 100,000 population = 9.2, deaths / 10000 vehicles = 1.3

I'm no mathmetitan but last time I checked 9.2 was less than 12.3 and 1.3 was less than 1.9. I'll happily stand corrected on this issue if I have somehow misunderstood this.

This probably won't copy & paste too well but you can look for yourself at
http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/research/fatal5yr.html#crash

Fatal road crashes in New Zealand
1996 - 2002
Fatal crashes during 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
January 28 35 37 42 25 38 32
February 32 38 38 39 31 34 34
March 44 44 43 27 34 34 34
April 32 48 29 47 39 36 21
May 35 38 32 29 36 44 39
June 49 37 36 30 32 29 36
July 35 32 37 29 26 30 29
August 37 37 24 49 23 21 27
September 28 29 35 30 38 26 22
October 42 35 44 35 23 28 26
November 43 43 41 39 30 26 30
December 52 52 39 37 46 48 34

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total 457 468 435 433 383 394 364

Anyway, what it shows is a downward trend between 1996 - 2002.

Below are the current years stats for fatal road crashes available at -
http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/research/annual-statistics-2002/index.html#summary

Summary data

Road crashes
fatal 364
injury 9798

Casualties
deaths 404
injuries 13918

Casualty rates
deaths per 10,000 vehicles 1.5
injuries per 10,000 vehicles 51
deaths per 100,000 population 10.3
injuries per 100,000 population 353

Current year to date road deaths.

As at 28 May 2004 172
Same time last year 193
Last 12 months 440

Lets hope this year the road toll goes under 400 again.

spudchucka

29th May 2004, 13:50

Here's some more interesting LTSA blurb.

http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/research/speed1.html

Have a look at the 85th percentile graph at the bottom of the page and ask yourself why the LTSA / Police target drivers exceeding 11kph above the posted speed limit. It seems that 15% of drivers on the road exceed the speed limit by this amount or more, the other 85% of motorists are good boys & girls who rarely travell above the speed limit.

Surprise surprise the same is true for urban speed limits as well.

http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/research/speed2.html

Its that same old naughty 15% again!!

spudchucka

29th May 2004, 14:06

Drink driving stats are quite intersting too.

http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/research/drink.html

In 1980 alcohol was a contributing factor in 217 road deaths or 36.2% of the road toll. In 1986 alcohol contributed to 328 road deaths or 42.8% of all road deaths. Since 1986 there has been a steady decline in alcohol related road deaths and by 2002 has reduced to 109 road deaths or 27% of the road toll.

I guess those hated alcohol check points that violate everbodys rights must also be having an effect on the road toll. I wouldn't count on check points dissapearing any time soon.

spudchucka

29th May 2004, 14:15

This one is quite intersting also.

http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/research/annual-statistics-2002/docs/historical-table-3.pdf

Check out the all time high score for the road toll in 1973 - 843 deaths.

273 drivers of motor cars.
250 passengers of motor cars
130 motorcyclists and pillion passengers
30 Cyclists
157 pedestrians, (holy crap)
3 other road users

spudchucka

29th May 2004, 14:17

Here's a bunch of motorcycle related crash stats.

http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/research/annual-statistics-2002/rep-accid-motorcycle.html

Lou Girardin

29th May 2004, 15:51

I read it incorrectly, I'll take option 4 if I'm allowed.
Readers Digest has a very conservative readership, similar demographic to the AA.
You accept AA surveys but not this, how strange
Of course, AA members were all in favour of speed cameras too, until they started getting pinged on the way to the bowling club.
Public approval has fallen dramatically since 2000, not '92.
Most of the time,MOT guys called the Police because they didn't even have arrest powers for failing to give ID particulars. It was either call the cops or let the offender go.
I've dealt with offenders carrying knives, gang members, and other types of lowlife. They weren't quite as numerous as they are now though. We were nearly always outnumbered and most offenders were bigger than me, But while some of these guys did worry me, I did my job as did nearly everyone I worked with. Don't forget that it took years of lobbying before we were even issued handcuffs, let alone batons.
And also don't forget the MOT guys that died on duty, Robin Dudding for one.
Arresting someone for dangerous is a "serious infringement of their rights" and plucking their licence for 28 days isn't? If the offence is serious enough to warrant removal from the road, it's serious enough for arrest.
No figures for deaths per 100,000kms?
No figures for 2003?
Guiliani achieved his results with substantially the same number of Police. He employed them more effectively.
Only 15% of drivers travell at 11 km/h or more over the limit? Couldn't have been surveyed in Auckland.
280,000 Officer issued tickets last year were for less than 20km/h over the limit. Add approx 230,000 camera tickets and you have over 500,000 drivers ticketed. Are there 3.3 million drivers in NZ? Or is this more creative statistics from the naughty scamps at the LTSA?
85th percentile rings a bell.
Oh yes, that's what cameras were introduced to enforce. One South Island road having a 127 km/h trigger speed! Until the Govt saw all the lovely loot coming in, then we got a blanket 11 km/h trigger speed.
And Lasers were introduced to target the clever, high speed drivers that radar couldn't catch. We could see on TV all those clever, high speed drivers being pinged in the Mt. Victoria tunnel. Couldn't we.
Irrational hatred of the Police? Not really, just as the Christians don't hate the sinner just the sin. I don't hate the Police, just their policies. But it does seem that there is some hatred from some quarters in here.

marty

29th May 2004, 17:13

I read it incorrectly no shit, I'll take option 4 if I'm allowed.
Readers Digest has a very conservative readership, similar demographic to the AA. except they have an interest in motoring
You accept AA surveys but not this, how strange
Of course, AA members were all in favour of speed cameras too, until they started getting pinged on the way to the bowling club. if they couldn't see that happening then should they even be driving?
Public approval has fallen dramatically since 2000, not '92. i've been in the police since pre-merger, and it's been dropping ever since that fateful day (hey maybe it's MY fault.....)
Most of the time,MOT guys called the Police because they didn't even have arrest powers for failing to give ID particulars. It was either call the cops or let the offender go. any offence under the Transport Act 1962 was arrestable by a Traffic Officer in full uniform and displaying a badge of authority. in my experience - they just got too big for their boots. Auck City Council staff though didn't have the same powers - maybe that's who you're thinking of there.
I've dealt with offenders carrying knives, gang members, and other types of lowlife. They weren't quite as numerous as they are now though. or tripping out on 'P' utnumbered and most offenders were bigger than me, But while some of these guys did worry me, I did my job as did nearly everyone I worked with. Don't forget that it took years of lobbying before we were even issued handcuffs, let alone batons.
And also don't forget the MOT guys that died on duty, Robin Dudding for one. full respect to any officer who has died on duty (2 officers that i worked with and knew personally have. how did this comment get in here?)
Arresting someone for dangerous is a "serious infringement of their rights" and plucking their licence for 28 days isn't? If the offence is serious enough to warrant removal from the road, it's serious enough for arrest. (i don't think you understand the difference between the rights attached to personal freedom, and not being bailable as of right, as opposed to the taking away of something that is given to you on the understanding that if you abuse it, that you will lose it. there is a chasm of difference between arbitrary arrest, and roadside suspension - which is not arbitrary, but is enshrined in legislation) No figures for deaths per 100,000kms?
No figures for 2003?
Guiliani achieved his results with substantially the same number of Police. He employed them more effectively.
Only 15% of drivers travell at 11 km/h or more over the limit? Couldn't have been surveyed in Auckland.
280,000 Officer issued tickets last year were for less than 20km/h over the limit. Add approx 230,000 camera tickets and you have over 500,000 drivers ticketed. Are there 3.3 million drivers in NZ? Or is this more creative statistics from the naughty scamps at the LTSA? (i don't get your maths here)
85th percentile rings a bell.
Oh yes, that's what cameras were introduced to enforce. One South Island road having a 127 km/h trigger speed! Until the Govt saw all the lovely loot coming in, then we got a blanket 11 km/h trigger speed. (cameras were introduced to photograph speeders. the 85th percentile was a convenient cut off, but it was obvious that depending on where you were, you may or may not get a ticket. imagine being allowed to travel with impunity at 75k in a 50 in auckland, then getting pinged in dunedin for the same thing - you be moaning loud and long about that. at 11kmh over, there is nationwide compliance, nationwide expectation - i know i will get as ticket for 111 on the southern motorway, or the kaikoura coast, so i keep my speed down accordingly, or pay the tickets when i know i've been snapped.)
And Lasers were introduced to target the clever, high speed drivers that radar couldn't catch. We could see on TV all those clever, high speed drivers being pinged in the Mt. Victoria tunnel. Couldn't we. (just like the valentine 1 etc etc were introduced to avoid it. it's all part of the game lou, a game that you just can't stand losing)
Irrational hatred of the Police? Not really, just as the Christians don't hate the sinner just the sin. I don't hate the Police, just their policies. (your rhetoric suggests otherwise - you at least hold them in contempt) But it does seem that there is some hatred from some quarters in here. (of course there is - we can't all love each other)
not only did you read it incorrectly lou, you went on to base your whole self-fulfilling argument on it. you argue like a single policy political party, plenty of rhetoric, personal attacks and narrow mindedness.

i won't be partaking any more in a discussion with someone who can't even get their facts right to open with.

spudchucka

29th May 2004, 17:30

No figures for deaths per 100,000kms?
No figures for 2003?

Everyone know 2003 was a horror year for road deaths, I guess thats why you are pressing that point, to show an increas in the road toll. I'm sure I pasted in the current years figures, if I didn't there is a link to those figures. I couldn't find any stats for deaths per 100,000 kms only per 100,000 of population, if I had found it I would have posted it.

Only 15% of drivers travell at 11 km/h or more over the limit? Couldn't have been surveyed in Auckland.

Have a look at the link I provided it has a break down of the areas surveyed. I can't remember Aucklands figures so have a look for yourself.

280,000 Officer issued tickets last year were for less than 20km/h over the limit. Add approx 230,000 camera tickets and you have over 500,000 drivers ticketed. Are there 3.3 million drivers in NZ? Or is this more creative statistics from the naughty scamps at the LTSA?

Less than 20 kph over the limit or between 11 - 20 kph over the limit? Which is of course the exact bracket that the 85th percentile refers to. There aren't 3.3 million drivers in NZ, that must be obvious to anyone. It must therefore be the same percentage of drivers in NZ that continually exceed the speed limit and are being prosecuted for it. Creative stats exist on all sides of an arguement. They don't mean anything unless the person reading the stats is able to read them objectively.

85th percentile rings a bell.

What bell?

Oh yes, that's what cameras were introduced to enforce. One South Island road having a 127 km/h trigger speed! Until the Govt saw all the lovely loot coming in, then we got a blanket 11 km/h trigger speed.

127km/h trigger speed is ridiculous. There is a national speed limit so the cameras should be managed in a nationwide uniform manner.

And Lasers were introduced to target the clever, high speed drivers that radar couldn't catch. We could see on TV all those clever, high speed drivers being pinged in the Mt. Victoria tunnel. Couldn't we.

So does that make it improper use of the device? Perhaps you would prefer the instalation of a static camera? Lasers, Radar, Cameras - they are all just tools, how they are used is not up to you.

Irrational hatred of the Police? Not really, just as the Christians don't hate the sinner just the sin. I don't hate the Police, just their policies. But it does seem that there is some hatred from some quarters in here.

I don't hate you, how can I hate someone I've never met? I'll admit that I think you have some seriously unusual views but as far as what is said on this forum you are just an internet persona with many opposing views to myself. Having said that I wouldn't poke you in the eye if I ever met you, in fact it would probably be a rather interesting encounter.

wkid_one

29th May 2004, 18:14

4 words guys - Law of Diminishing Returns - the road toll can't continue to fall with a growing population, increasing vehicle registrations and an ageing population!

marty

29th May 2004, 18:34

ageing and immigrating......

What?

29th May 2004, 19:57

Excellent observation Wkid.
Spud: Lou is dead right about Waitakere council wanting to run it's own speed cameras - they are lobbying govt on this at present.

spudchucka

30th May 2004, 05:45

Excellent observation Wkid.
Spud: Lou is dead right about Waitakere council wanting to run it's own speed cameras - they are lobbying govt on this at present.
I'll take your word for it. I don't live up there so am not aware of what your local councils are up to. I'll agree that local bodies are heavily intent on snatching money from whatever sources they can and I think letting them run speed cameras would be a big mistake. That sort of thing should be solely the domain of the police or some other central govt organisation.

spudchucka

30th May 2004, 05:54

Only 15% of drivers travell at 11 km/h or more over the limit? Couldn't have been surveyed in Auckland.

Lou, in regards to the 85th percentile I went back and plucked the Auckland, Northland and Waikato survey results for you.

Mean open road speeds (km/h)
Region 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Northland 97.9 99.0 99.1 98.2 96.3 96.3
Auckland 100.0 102.5 101.0 101.9 102.2 100.5
Waikato 101.6 102.6 101.0 100.2 99.4 97.2

85th percentile open road speeds (km/h)

Region 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Northland 110 112 110 109 105 105
Auckland 114 117 116 116 116 113
Waikato 111 112 110 108 107 104

Mean urban speeds (km/h)
Region 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Northland 55.9 55.6 55.1 54.2 54.5 53.0
Auckland 59.2 57.9 58.2 57.7 57.5 56.3
Waikato 56.2 57.3 57.6 56.7 55.8 55.2

85th percentile urban speeds (km/h)
Region 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Northland 62.0 61.5 62.0 60.0 61.0 59.0
Auckland 66.0 65.0 65.0 64.0 63.0 62.0
Waikato 63.0 64.0 64.5 63.0 61.5 61.0

Again the links to the survey results are here:
http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/research/speed2.html
http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/research/speed1.html

I guess the results do show higher speeds in Auckland. It would be interesting to know where the survey was conducted however.

spudchucka

30th May 2004, 06:34

Lou Girardin

30th May 2004, 07:31

It's because we have a lot of vehicles for our size. Still haven't heard the deaths per 100,000 km's figure. The LTSA doesn't seem to release it much either.

spudchucka

30th May 2004, 07:38

It's because we have a lot of vehicles for our size. Still haven't heard the deaths per 100,000 km's figure. The LTSA doesn't seem to release it much either.
I've been looking but haven't found those figures. Is it deaths per 100K of kms travelled or deaths per 100K of actual roading that you are after?

What?

30th May 2004, 19:20

I'll agree that local bodies are heavily intent on snatching money from whatever sources they can and I think letting them run speed cameras would be a big mistake..
Mate, I reckon even Lou at his cynical best would agree on that!!

spudchucka

30th May 2004, 21:49

I think anyone who isn't a local body official out to squeeze funds from their townsfolk would agree that it is a bad idea.

spudchucka

30th May 2004, 22:13

MikeL

30th May 2004, 22:27

I'll agree that local bodies are heavily intent on snatching money from whatever sources they can and I think letting them run speed cameras would be a big mistake. That sort of thing should be solely the domain of the police or some other central govt organisation.

Three questions:

1 Why do you assume that local bodies would be in it for the revenue gathering but the police (at whatever level) are not motivated by this?

2 Why, if speed cameras are good in that they reduce average speeds and therefore deaths and injuries, should we not applaud the local bodies for contributing to road safety?

3 Leaving aside the revenue gathering question, what other compelling reason is there to support a police or central government monopoly on speed cameras? Is there any doubt that the local authorities would be any less competent, professional or honest than the police?

spudchucka

31st May 2004, 09:47

1 Why do you assume that local bodies would be in it for the revenue gathering but the police (at whatever level) are not motivated by this?
I'm making that comment as a rate payer - nothing else. Local bodies will reap the benefit of any revenue they gather from speed cameras whereas the police don't receive any financial benefit from speed cameras.

2 Why, if speed cameras are good in that they reduce average speeds and therefore deaths and injuries, should we not applaud the local bodies for contributing to road safety?
If they were motivated by a desire to lower the road toll then they are to be applauded. I simply can't see that as being the councils "main" reason for wanting to be involved. If the revenue colected went to central govt coffers and not to the local bodies then I would have no problem with them operating speed cameras as long as they had properly trained people to operate the devices.

3 Leaving aside the revenue gathering question, what other compelling reason is there to support a police or central government monopoly on speed cameras? Is there any doubt that the local authorities would be any less competent, professional or honest than the police?
I think I've answered this one above. So long as the authority operating the cameras does not receive any direct financial benefit from the revenue gathered, (other than to pay wages and cover operating costs) and they are properly trained and auditable then I see no problem. This isn't the impression I got when first reading the post mentioning the council wanting to be involved. Its just my opinion that cameras should be left as the domain of a central govt agency, which for the time being is the police.

riffer

31st May 2004, 10:10

Interesting on TV3 news tonight the LTSA / Police are claiming the anywhere - anytime speed camera campaign is having an impact on the road toll. April and May 2004 have apparently been record low months for road deaths. Personally i think that 2 months worth of low road tolls is a bit premature to claim the new campaign is responsible but good on them anyway. It will be interesting to see how the subsequent months pan out.
Very difficult to claim that particularly as they compare figures against last year only, when we had an abnormal amount of multiple fatalities in a single incident crashes.

If they could show a sustainable trend over 2-3 years then I would start to believe them.

Speed cameras as such have not slowed me down one little bit.

However HP with lasers have slowed me down hugely.

spudchucka

31st May 2004, 10:32

Very difficult to claim that particularly as they compare figures against last year only, when we had an abnormal amount of multiple fatalities in a single incident crashes.

If they could show a sustainable trend over 2-3 years then I would start to believe them.

Speed cameras as such have not slowed me down one little bit.

However HP with lasers have slowed me down hugely.
I agree with you, I'm not a supporter of speed cameras at all but highly visible HP enforcement does have an effect. The news report was claiming that over the last two months the toll has taken a huge dip, (and it has) and was attributing this dip to the fact that speed cameras are now anywhere - anytime. They were comparing it to the previous three months of 2004 not to the same months last year.

Lou Girardin

31st May 2004, 20:38

marty

31st May 2004, 21:10

well i live in cambridge, and i know for sure that it has slowed all the locals, trucks and north bound bikes down. it's mostly jafa's that are being snapped i'm pickin....

jimbo600

31st May 2004, 21:43

You ARE wrong - the total road toll HAS gone up but not by anywhere near the percentage/amount that vehicle numbers and km driven have gone up, plus if you don't like getting a speeding ticket - DON'T SPEED!!! it's that simple!

Maybe, but the ratio is consistent with other countries that employ a more lenient methodology of enforcement. A big factor is improvements in vehicle construction and safety development. I have lived here since 1996 and I can tell you without hyperbole that driving is alot more dangerous and frustrating since the heavy handed speed enforcement tactic. Folk are shit scared at going over 90km's lest they get a ticket. This results in huge convoys of irate drivers making extreme overtaking manoeuvres. Safer to cruise alert at 110kmh than half asleep at 100kmh.

jimbo600

31st May 2004, 21:56

Here's some more stuff for folks to consider.

Road Policing Statistics
Length of road in New Zealand: 91,000km
Number of licensed drivers: 2.52 million
Number of registered motor vehicles: 2.9 million
Number of Highway Patrol officers: 225
Time spent highway patrolling p.a: 32,049 days
Number of Traffic Offence Notices issued last year:
1.1 million
Number of crashes attended by Police in one year:
36,084 - about 100 every day
Annual Road Policing Budget: $196.4 million
Road Policing as proportion of Police budget: 22%

How do we compare?
Deaths per 10,000 vehicles (2001/02)
Sweden 1.1
Norway 1.0
UK 1.2
Australia 1.4
New Zealand 1.5
USA 1.9
France 2.3

Deaths per 100,000 population (2001/02)
Sweden 6.2
Norway 6.1
UK 6.1
Australia 9.0
New Zealand 10.3
France 13.8

Per 10,000 vehicles NZ isn't too bad compared to other countries but per 100,000 of population we are crap.

More people use public transport overseas than here so the ratio of population to car user in NZ is very high. Also it's interesting to note that the stats for fatalities per 10,000 vehicles which I believe to be more apprpriate; the countries that have a lower rate than NZ have higher speed limits and greater speed tolorance (with the exeption of france.) The USA has a lower limit and strict enforcement yet worse statistics.

Slim

31st May 2004, 23:16

well i live in cambridge, and i know for sure that it has slowed all the locals
Hell yes. :eek5:

spudchucka

1st June 2004, 01:01

Or, perish the thought, people aren't travelling as much with higher fuel prices.
I may be wrong, but I thought they compared the fatalities to 2003 figures. Which was much higher than 2002. More manipulation of stats by LTSA?
As a commentator said in a story about the Cambridge speed camera, the highest revenue earner in NZ, doesn't the fact that it is detecting so many speeders show that the system isn't working?
Lasers don't need to slow you down, celticno6. Experience better living through technology.
Lou
PS. Spud, fatalities per 100,000 km's travelled.
I'll happily stand corrected but I'm sure the report I saw was comparing only this years road deaths. They were trying to cash in on the alleged impact of the anywhere anytime campaign, which has only been in existance for the last few months.

What stuns me about speed cameras is that fools keep getting caught by the bloody things. If they are willing to part with their money in this manner then good on them, just keep on speeding. I can understand your reasoning about the number of people getting caught suggests they don't work. A survey of speeds in that area would be interesting to compare to pre camera days.

Lou that would be an interesting stat but my feeling is that obtaining reliable figures would be next to impossible as there are a lot of people that disconect speedos. I don't see how an accurate figure could be obtained. They would probably just survey a sample of motorists and estimate a national figure, which wouldn't make for a compelling statistic.

pete376403

1st June 2004, 12:54

vifferman

1st June 2004, 13:17

I feel very tempted to invest in a paint ball gun, and some home reloads with fast drying laquer paint...

People in a town in the USA did exactly that in protest to speed cameras being introduced. After a while, it became financially unviable to keep cleaning/fixing the cameras, so they got rid of them.

While we're on this topic, are the fixed speed cameras still being used? A few months ago, someone pointed out they hadn't seen the camera at home (you can tell by looking for the flashbulb in the window) in their local speed camera for a long time. Someone else said they'd suspended use of them because of some legal/technical snafu.

matthewt

1st June 2004, 22:10

While we're on this topic, are the fixed speed cameras still being used? A few months ago, someone pointed out they hadn't seen the camera at home (you can tell by looking for the flashbulb in the window) in their local speed camera for a long time. Someone else said they'd suspended use of them because of some legal/technical snafu.

Yup, I got pinged (from the front he he) about 3 weeks ago through Petone.

riffer

2nd June 2004, 08:53

I must be doing something wrong. I can't seem to set that sucker off.

Do you have to ride EXACTLY in the middle of the hexagon pads.

Surely my bike isn't too light to set it off? :no:

matthewt

2nd June 2004, 14:15

I must be doing something wrong. I can't seem to set that sucker off.

Do you have to ride EXACTLY in the middle of the hexagon pads.

Surely my bike isn't too light to set it off? :no:

Why are you trying to set it off ????

Maybe you're not going fast enough :niceone: