Police working to a quota?? Surely not... [Archive]

Grahameeboy

2nd July 2006, 08:08

Article in the herald here
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10389327

I find it hard to believe that anyone would think that some traffic policing is about revenue rather than safety :killingme

When it comes to speeding this is the easiest and most effecient method of upholding the Law and I guess that this cannot be argued.

However, having a quote does fly in the face of what the Govt say they are doing. Why is it that at month end or bank hols they Police make more of an effort......it has to be that they know that there are more cars out there and a higher productivity rate.

I am not slagging off the cops as they have a job to do and they are just the poor sods who, like a lot of us, have to follow the job description.

It is just a shame that speeding is not really the main issue with accidents / safety aspects and we have all seen bad driving which really superseds speed issue and I have myself witnesses bad driving in front of a patrol car and nothing happens because speeding is objective and cannot be argued.

How many fatal accidents are actually caused by bad driving rather than speed?

In the UK stats say that 30% of accidents are speed related but when you break down the accidents only 4% were actually caused by excessive speed.

Yep 30% of accidents are caused by speed so 70% are caused by drivers keeping to speed limit or

30% of accidents are caused by alcohol so 70% of accidents are caused by sober drivers.

So you could argue that keeping to the speed limit and being sober is more dangerous.....okay a silly twist but you can see my point.

Sniper

2nd July 2006, 08:15

Yep 30% of accidents are caused by speed so 70% are caused by drivers keeping to speed limit or
Drivers on cellphones, drivers not indicating, drivers who chat to their mums and weave all over, drivers who fall asleep at the wheel. Plenty of examples but its easy to get caught in the facts

30% of accidents are caused by alcohol so 70% of accidents are caused by sober drivers.
See above, but still very well said mate

I have no problem with the cops. I had a minor gripe when they gave me a fine, but I was in the wrong. Who cares about ticket quota? If you were caught driving illegally or doing something else wrong then you get a ticket. No use bitching that you were part of a quota system, it wont stand up in court.

My sunday morning 2c

GIXser

2nd July 2006, 08:17

cowpoos

2nd July 2006, 08:22

instead of turning this in to a cop bashing thread.....how about we turn it into a government bashing thread!!!

Sniper

2nd July 2006, 08:23

instead of turning this in to a cop bashing thread.....how about we turn it into a government bashing thread!!!

I hate the goverment, lets stage a coup.

Grahameeboy

2nd July 2006, 08:25

I have no problem with the cops. I had a minor gripe when they gave me a fine, but I was in the wrong. Who cares about ticket quota? If you were caught driving illegally or doing something else wrong then you get a ticket. No use bitching that you were part of a quota system, it wont stand up in court.

My sunday morning 2c

I am with you on that one....see my thread when I got pinged...........however, my point is that the Govt need to be honest and if there is a quota system admit it.........and not just concentrate on speeding because that is not a level playing field.

Grahameeboy

2nd July 2006, 08:25

I hate the goverment, lets stage a coup.

I did say Govt......

Grahameeboy

2nd July 2006, 08:28

Well said Grahame,
a few of us were pulled over last week on state highway 16 first person got a ticket for speeding,.. the cunt/oops... i mean cop gave me a ticket fas well for my plate, (it was dirty and wrong size etc)he proceeded to tell me that his boss had told him to write tickets because to many people had been dying on this road, i asked him, as i wasnt speeding .. what my plate had to do with people dying ont the road,????, he just mumbled.. and gave me the ticket,
point in case ....this cop was just a prick and had a quota to fill, at the end of the day they are just running their own cost centres" and thats fucked,,with all the crime going on

I do not think that cops are cunts.....there just needs to be consistency in what is done I guess.

Anyway, I am gonna head off for Coro, probably my last ride whilst I get my restricted licence for going over 100pts....no complaints just a nuisance so gonna enjoy my last ride for a while....

cowpoos

2nd July 2006, 08:32

I hate the goverment, lets stage a coup.
wonder if we can inlist tama iti ???

Sniper

2nd July 2006, 08:34

wonder if we can inlist tama iti ???

If it gets bad we could always get a couple of wild ones too. Although tama iti running round firing off rounds should be enough for a start

jimbo600

2nd July 2006, 09:21

Lets all go to Parliaiment and do burnouts on the NZ flag.

I would much rather be past by a competent driver at 140kmh than have to dodge a bungling twat at 90kmh.

The police use a intelligence led policing model. That means that all facets of policing revolve around stats. If a district is showing lower stats in a certain area they will crack down on that area. Personally I think its bollocks but there you go. Giving out trivial tickets pisses us off, besmirches the rest of the police, and serves little purpose other than massaging statistics.

terbang

2nd July 2006, 09:29

I am not slagging off the cops as they have a job to do and they are just the poor sods who, like a lot of us, have to follow the job description

Yes I agree the pollies use the police as political footballs. However it is all very well for cops to say "Oh I was just doing what Im told", but as the last window of opportunity you would think they, cops, would have the nouse or freedom to offer some feedback. They are part of the picture and their say is important.

So if my employer said "point yersalf toward a mountain at 500 MPH", whether it be for commercial reasons or a mistake is irrelevant, you as a passenger would like to think that the front line pilot had enough clues to recognise a problem and have the facility to avoid the problem and then feed it back to make the future operation more effective and safer..

My view is that speed cameras and similar are just plain revenue collecting and the arguement that it isn't is starting to wear thin. You cops out there do see the real picture and it is about time you, through your own associations, had a voice on these issues. Or do you think the current policing in NZ is just fine and don't want to see any changes..?

pritch

2nd July 2006, 09:57

but as the last window of opportunity you would think they, cops, would have the nouse or freedom to offer some feedback. They are part of the picture and their say is important.

It does happen, however rarely, but the politicians and therefore management, aren't interested. My information is out of date now but people haven't changed much in the last three years or so...

James Deuce

2nd July 2006, 10:02

No point whinging about it. You're not regarded as anything other than a taxable economic resource.

WINJA

2nd July 2006, 10:23

fucken pigs why dont they have a similar quota on catching burglars and then be held accountable for that quota , i blame the pig on the coal face for enforcing this bullshit cause with some unity they can say fuck off to their superiors

inlinefour

2nd July 2006, 10:30

instead of turning this in to a cop bashing thread.....how about we turn it into a government bashing thread!!!

They are the swines who are teling the ploddies what they can/cannot do.

And as WINJA said, about time that the Govt allowed the Police do what they are supposed to do. Protect the NZ people, not rape and pillage out on the road...

Ixion

2nd July 2006, 10:42

N4CR

2nd July 2006, 11:31

So, as Mr WINJA says, the finger cannot only be pointed at "the bosses" or "the government". Clearly it is they who set the tone, but it is individual coppers who choose to go along with it. Our own members evidence that despite the bosses or overnment, it is the individual who chooses to be a cunt, or not.

Yep, sometimes at work I will get told something specific by the boss and some poor bugger comes in who has stuffed something up, I will sometimes apply judgement to help them out without the usual exhorbitant charge, basic stuff like that goes along way for P.R...
Then things change after a while when they see the positives and that it ain't always about money.

Mabey there could be a lesson learnt here?

Most of the cops on here are lurkers, at least more than one still applies judgment where appropriate...

smokeyging

2nd July 2006, 12:07

fucken pigs why dont they have a similar quota on catching burglars

Good point, unfortunatly the goverment probably thinks the burglers are'nt silly enough to get revenue from, and probably have no money anyway.

igor

2nd July 2006, 13:21

yawn:zzzz:

scumdog

2nd July 2006, 15:11

When it comes to speeding this is the easiest and most effecient method of upholding the Law and I guess that this cannot be argued.

I have myself witnesses bad driving in front of a patrol car and nothing happens because speeding is objective and cannot be argued.

True about the 'can't be argued' thing Gb as often i get the comeback "I wasn't following too close" or "I never crossed the yellow line" etc so I guess a few stick to speed.

Re the bad driving you witnessed: A ticket is a ticket, susprised it wasn't acted on, maybe there were other circumstances in this incident?.

Mean while I'll just duck for cover whenever some disgruntled KBer opens up on the ticket thing. (and thank my lucky stars that speed cameras, HP cops etc leave me alone, maybe it's something to do with the speeds I ride?:scooter: )

scumdog

2nd July 2006, 15:14

Good point, unfortunatly the goverment probably thinks the burglers are'nt silly enough to get revenue from, and probably have no money anyway.

Sounds like some KBers.:wait: :whistle:

Da Bird

2nd July 2006, 16:24

FACT: Districts are ranked from 1 to 12 (12 districts in the country) on a range of road policing fronts, from crashes to speeding offences to seatbelt wearning compliance and others.

When you are sitting at the bottom of one of those particular ladders, what do you think happens? A directive usually comes from the top (shit flows downhill) to target that area. No quota as such is set but a "push" in that area obviously results in more tickets, whether it be for speeding or whatever.

As for a quota of one an hour that was mentioned in the paper, (8 or 9 in a shift), I can do that in 2-3 hours sitting at one intersection. Its not exactly hard to do and there needs to be some accountability as to what that cop is doing all day.

And WINJA, if I did what you suggested, I'm not likely to get a pay rise so sorry, but that plan just failed.

BC.

Biff

2nd July 2006, 16:35

Simply blaming the cop at the 'coal face' is wrong. If my guys ignored the quotas/targets I give them I'd give them a hard time in return for not following instructions. IMO this is down to poor governance. Once again, thanks to policy, police officers loose credibility and public support through the actions of their superiors and govt.

Then again, if you don't break the rules they wont break your balls.

Mrs Busa Pete

2nd July 2006, 16:51

if they dident have demerits or 28 day loss of licence we could just rent a speed say $100 per hour for sub 200kms and $200per hour for over good revenue for far north after the crash in the drug industry.

Clivoris

2nd July 2006, 17:53

A while ago, a senior fed suggested dropping fines and doubling demerits (or something like that). Initialy this seemed like a good idea. After a little thought, I figured a bit of extra speeding tax paid on occasion might be the softer option. In the end we know the rules of the game and we have to suck it up if we get caught. I do feel sympathy for the feds caught between a disgruntled public; and politicians and managers, politicking and managing.

spudchucka

2nd July 2006, 19:47

Article in the herald here
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10389327

I find it hard to believe that anyone would think that some traffic policing is about revenue rather than safety :killingme
Its not about revenue gathering or road safety, its all about getting more tickets than your colleagues so that you can make them shout the first round at the policemans ball!

Grahameeboy

2nd July 2006, 19:51

True about the 'can't be argued' thing Gb as often i get the comeback "I wasn't following too close" or "I never crossed the yellow line" etc so I guess a few stick to speed.

Re the bad driving you witnessed: A ticket is a ticket, susprised it wasn't acted on, maybe there were other circumstances in this incident?.

Mean while I'll just duck for cover whenever some disgruntled KBer opens up on the ticket thing. (and thank my lucky stars that speed cameras, HP cops etc leave me alone, maybe it's something to do with the speeds I ride?:scooter: )

Tell you what if they stick a gun at the end of my road they would get about 1 every 5 mins so there is some merit in issues about where the Police set up speed traps which does throw some mud at the safety aspect....straight road in Dairy Flats or residential area..............mmm what do you reckon the answer is??

Last year we had some hoon doing wheel spins up our road, yes it does happen in Devonport lovelies.....cop was renting across road and we gave chase and got 'im...

But agree that no point getting disgruntled about tickets....105 points and me has to get a limited licence cause of me Daughter....no complaints, get ferry to work and just a nuisance for 3 months......but has made me think about things.......

Grahameeboy

2nd July 2006, 19:52

Its not about revenue gathering or road safety, its all about getting more tickets than your colleagues so that you can make them shout the first round at the policemans ball!

Right..that is more acceptable......now when is the ball???

eliot-ness

2nd July 2006, 19:55

Its not about revenue gathering or road safety, its all about geting more tickets than your colleagues so that you can make them shoot the first round at the policemans balls!

Sounds a bit drastic!!

Skytwr

2nd July 2006, 20:00

spudchucka

2nd July 2006, 20:01

We have on this site a number of members who are police oficers. They have various commented that they apply discretion and common sense in their policing actvities, statements borne out by their general attitude. So it is clearly possible for individual officers to override or disregard any over zealous orders from on high

There is also more than sufficient evidence of other police officers whose attitudes are markedly different.

Now, the question is, if the KB coppers can behave decently, then why cannot the others.

So, as Mr WINJA says, the finger cannot only be pointed at "the bosses" or "the government". Clearly it is they who set the tone, but it is individual coppers who choose to go along with it. Our own members evidence that despite the bosses or overnment, it is the individual who chooses to be a cunt, or not.
I haven't written anyone a ticket for about two months simply because I haven't come across anyone that deserved one. Nobody is telling me to get my ticket count up!

The meat-head who wrote that memo suggested that his his minions should target speed in road work areas to get there ticket counts up before the close of for the financial year. Personally I think that stinks and the public have every reason to bitch about the attitude it represents.

However, I have spoken to a few cops that work in the HP group in question and the tell me that this attitude isn't typical????? Believe it or not, thats up to you but even the area commander was on the news tonight saying it was BS. I think the author of that memo is going to have a bit of explaining to do on Monday.

spudchucka

2nd July 2006, 20:06

Right..that is more acceptable......now when is the ball???
Its a secret!!

spudchucka

2nd July 2006, 20:07

Sounds a bit drastic!!
Thats naughty, you don't work for the media do ya, miss-quoting like that I'd say you may have missed your calling!

"Occupation: Retired."

Retired what?

eliot-ness

2nd July 2006, 20:14

Thats naughty, you don't work for the media do ya, miss-quoting like that I'd say you may have missed your calling!

"Occupation: Retired."

Retired what?

Editor!!!!!!!!!!!!

igor

2nd July 2006, 20:15

The meat-head who wrote that memo suggested that his his minions should target speed in road work areas to get there ticket counts up before the close of for the financial year. Personally I think that stinks and the public have every reason to bitch about the attitude it represents.

I think it is just typical of the quality of all the staff in the District the "meat-head" is from.:yes: :yes: :yes:

whadda reckon spuddy:innocent:

MattRSK

2nd July 2006, 20:16

Why not just target young guys. Even if they are not doing anything wrong. I have been issued an $800 ticket for something I have had no part in doing. So a big Fuck You to the cop who pulled me up.

spudchucka

2nd July 2006, 20:19

I think it is just typical of the quality of all the staff in the District the "meat-head" is from.:yes: :yes: :yes:

whadda reckon spuddy:innocent:
Yeah except most of us can't read so memos are useless and the bosses have to follow us around with tazers to encorouge ticket writing.

They never said WHO the trial was going to be on...... did they?:blip:

spudchucka

2nd July 2006, 20:20

Editor!!!!!!!!!!!!
Figures!!!!!!!

eliot-ness

2nd July 2006, 20:29

Figures!!!!!!!

Nah.. Books.

igor

2nd July 2006, 20:34

I think it is just typical of the quality of all the staff in the District the "meat-head" is from.:yes: :yes: :yes:

whadda reckon spuddy:innocent:

Uncle ALAN the STOREY teller will like that

Timber020

2nd July 2006, 21:30

I have friends who work in all the wrong and right places. If you want to bitch about all the speeding tickets, is the fucking LTNZ that you should be bitching about, they are after returns for the money that they put into land transport in various form, they are the ones that are pressuring the police from what I understand.

Not the police, they are just following orders from the LTNZ

WINJA

2nd July 2006, 22:23

Jantar

2nd July 2006, 22:42

First off there is no quota, I can issue as many notices as I like.

Now that i have your attention here is the way i see it.

I am in traffic enforcement and enjoy it. Reason being, how do your burglars, rapist and all other shitheads get around, they bloody drive. Do they walk down the road with your tv, video and other items in their car, NO.

I have had more arrest of burglars and other serious offenders than some of my mates on the front line. Why because I am mobile and can be anywhere at anytime as i have a set area but can cover other areas when required.

good to have a debate over these topics as it keeps everybody on their toes.

This is bullshit. In over 36 years of motorcycling and driving I have lost count of the number of times I've been stopped. A few of these have resulted in traffic tickets some of which were deserved. Not once, of all those times, have I been accused of being a burglar.

Perhaps we should ask everyone on here how many times they have stopped, compared to how many times they have been arrested for burglary.

WINJA

2nd July 2006, 22:56

Perhaps we should ask everyone on here how many times they have stopped, compared to how many times they have been arrested for burglary.
ITS JUST ANOTHER PIG TRYING TO JUSTIFY HIS USE OF OXYGEN, NOTICE THEIR BULLSHIT IS GETTING LESS BELIEVEABLE

jimbo600

2nd July 2006, 22:57

First off there is no quota, I can issue as many notices as I like.

Now that i have your attention here is the way i see it.

I am in traffic enforcement and enjoy it. Reason being, how do your burglars, rapist and all other shitheads get around, they bloody drive. Do they walk down the road with your tv, video and other items in their car, NO.

I have had more arrest of burglars and other serious offenders than some of my mates on the front line. Why because I am mobile and can be anywhere at anytime as i have a set area but can cover other areas when required.

good to have a debate over these topics as it keeps everybody on their toes.

Thats utter bollocks. I've heard that crap before in relation to drug pushers too and its just wank. To catch a burg of a drugie you would have to search their car, now on what piece of legislation can you do that while issuing a ION?? And don't come back with the search without warrant thing under the misuse of drugs act as its got to be a pretty big call to use that one.

If you arrested me for stolen property while issuing a ticket and I wasn't arrested I'd walk.

What a crock of bullshit

skidMark

2nd July 2006, 23:01

Of course they arent working to a quota. They are as honest as politicians, and as straight as Elton John

green rep given ahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahaa

Skyryder

2nd July 2006, 23:05

Sometime ago I was scrolling in the LTNZ site and I came across a financial heading projected revinue from enforcement. Might not be those exact words but that was about gist of the heading. Don't rcall the figures and today when I tried to find the site with this info on the page had been removed. Anyone who has read the Governments Stratergy 2010 document can not but notice the buisness like phases that pepper this document. Goals, outcomes, stratergy, projections etc. In short the management of our transport system is run as a buisness. Now I don't have too much of a problem with that............but buisness have a projected cashflow...............and so does the LTNZ in respect of traffic enforcment. Now I don't care what it is called but it is a fact that a quota, projected revinue, or whatever does exist and is part of the overall financial accounting of the Ministry of Transport. A simple letter to the Minister asking for projected revinues for traffic enforcement for the current financial year will put this matter to rest once and for all. And if any one wants to get rely serious with this go back four or five years and ask for the projected figures as against 'real' revinue for the years copncerned.

Skyryder

Ixion

3rd July 2006, 00:01

This is bullshit. In over 36 years of motorcycling and driving I have lost count of the number of times I've been stopped. A few of these have resulted in traffic tickets some of which were deserved. Not once, of all those times, have I been accused of being a burglar.

Perhaps we should ask everyone on here how many times they have stopped, compared to how many times they have been arrested for burglary.

Perhaps, though, past history may make a difference?

When a cop stops you he checks your licence and stuff (usually) , and I presume at the same time may get a "potted history" of your previous record. If the history is a few speeding tickets and such, then the cop's not likely to explore further.

But I know that if I were a cop; and I stopped a driver, checked his licence and found he had a whole string of previous convictions for drug stuff, burglary and so on; then I'd be giving that driver a good going over - what's in the back? where'd that stereo come from? What's that I can smell ? and so on. And it would not be surprising if such close attention to "subjects" with a record might well turn up some interesting finds.

James Deuce

3rd July 2006, 00:02

Perhaps we should ask everyone on here how many times they have stopped, compared to how many times they have been arrested for burglary.

I've been interviewed once about noisy pipes and burgalled three times in the last 20 years.

Jantar

3rd July 2006, 00:20

Perhaps, though, past history may make a difference?

When a cop stops you he checks your licence and stuff (usually) , and I presume at the same time may get a "potted history" of your previous record. If the history is a few speeding tickets and such, then the cop's not likely to explore further.

But I know that if I were a cop; and I stopped a driver, checked his licence and found he had a whole string of previous convictions for drug stuff, burglary and so on; then I'd be giving that driver a good going over - what's in the back? where'd that stereo come from? What's that I can smell ? and so on. And it would not be surprising if such close attention to "subjects" with a record might well turn up some interesting finds.
So why not save a whole lot of hassle and be more honest at the same time? Just make random visits to those people who have a past history and stop hassling the motoring public.

The way the police are using possible criminal activity as a reason for stopping generally law abiding citizens is in itself a travesty of justice.

Ixion, I would ask you to go back to your union days. How would treat an employer who penalised honest workers in the hope of catching one dishonest employee? The police stopping motorists in the hope of catching a criminal is stealing time (and sometimes money) from every motorist stopped.

Ixion

3rd July 2006, 00:35

Well, I'm not sure that they are stopping motorists randomly to go on fishing expeditions.

But the difference between you being stopped for speeding, getting a ticket (or, if lucky, a tut tut and on your way); and Burglar Bill being stopped, also for speeding, and getting a through going over, lies perhaps in Burglar Bill's record.

You have no record, an honest citizen, the cop is not going to question you about burglaries. But if you were a cop and stopped a guy for speeding, and found he had (say) 100 previous convictions for burglary, wouldn't you ask some questions about the stuff in the back seat?

Which is quite a different matter to stopping motorists at random , on the off chance one of them might be a burglar. That, I also would strongly deprecate.

scumdog

3rd July 2006, 01:56

If you arrested me for stolen property while issuing a ticket and I wasn't arrested I'd walk.

Sheesh Jimbo, what does THAT lot mean in plain english??

BTW Guys, thought I'd try this ticketing of 'innocent' speeding motorists tonight, first guy was doing 74 in a 50 area, smelled if booze, long story short he blew 1148, 5th time drink driving.

Wouldn't you rather HE was off the road??

Decided to call it quits after that and just stop druggies and burglars, I've got this special radar see.......

Never got ONE.

Back to the old speed radar tomorrow, it DOES detect speed unlike the special one which didn't detect a single druggie or burglar...

(Actually I lied, there is no special radar, I need WINJA to invent one so it is easier to catch druggies and burglars and can then leave innocent speeding motorists alone)

Patrick

3rd July 2006, 02:06

Shite... another lying copper...just what WINJA needs...another excuse to have a go coz he's been so hard done by....:zzzz:

Grahameeboy

3rd July 2006, 05:55

LIKE THOSE GUYS GASSING JEWS WERE JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS

Sadly true.....fear was a major driver............bit different to the Police who I believe are following orders.

Grahameeboy

3rd July 2006, 05:56

Sheesh Jimbo, what does THAT lot mean in plain english??

BTW Guys, thought I'd try this ticketing of 'innocent' speeding motorists tonight, first guy was doing 74 in a 50 area, smelled if booze, long story short he blew 1148, 5th time drink driving.

Wouldn't you rather HE was off the road??

Decided to call it quits after that and just stop druggies and burglars, I've got this special radar see.......

Never got ONE.

Back to the old speed radar tomorrow, it DOES detect speed unlike the special one which didn't detect a single druggie or burglar...

(Actually I lied, there is no special radar, I need WINJA to invent one so it is easier to catch druggies and burglars and can then leave innocent speeding motorists alone)

Lots or Green Reps for that..............

James Deuce

3rd July 2006, 07:37

Wouldn't you rather HE was off the road??

I appreciate the sentiment of the rest of your post greatly. However he won't be off the road unless he goes to jail. Then when he's out he'll drive, license or no license.

It's a common theme in the creation of totalitarian dictatorships. The first thing that people lose is the freedom to travel without interference from the authorities unless there is proof that you need to be stopped and detained. People usually give up those freedoms under the guise of some need for the greater good of society. We (NZ) gave it away to drop a road death toll that hasn't appreciably diminished, and thanks to an increase in the number of drivers with minimal skills training on the road, will probably gently trend upward to match population growth.

In the meantime the only group of road users who care about improving the survivability of their chosen mode of transport, their favourite hobby, or more usually both, through rider training and active mentoring of relatives/friends/club members, continue to be pilloried for riding those "death traps".

The lucky politicians get to make convenient scapegoats out of the Police in the meantime, for both pratical "failures" in frontline Policing, and overall Policing policy.

Gee, I wonder why they struggle to recruit and retain cops?

jimbo600

3rd July 2006, 08:21

sAsLEX

3rd July 2006, 08:51

When it comes to speeding this is the easiest and most effecient method of upholding the Law and I guess that this cannot be argued.

yeah sure cause my tickets have slowed me down ............... tui anyone?

Swoop

3rd July 2006, 09:05

I've been interviewed once about noisy pipes...
Bloody bastard plumbers and what they charge!!!:angry:
Want to become rich, learn to be a plumber....

ajturbo

3rd July 2006, 09:13

on the news this morning (TV1) the police don't have "quoters".....

THEY HAVE TARGETS TO REACH

cowpoos

3rd July 2006, 09:16

yeah sure cause my tickets have slowed me down ............... tui anyone?
nah...I think you need a ghey auckland beer...you ride a honda!!

Quasievil

3rd July 2006, 09:20

Well as far as Im concerned, their is absolutely no doubt that the police are interested in "gathering Revenue" I dont believe for a minute that the huge emphasis on ticketing has anything to do with road safety.
For my past tickets both on Motorbikes, one south of Hunterville doing 114kmph , the next one was 112kmph going downhill on a three lane road on the Ducati. I got these tickets, I stopped as soon as I saw the lights , I was nice to the officer etc etc etc, I really really expected to be let of both occasions considering the light traffic and the negliable "over the limit speed" but NO, both officers didnt even batter an eyelid in ticketing me.

Interestingly I was in the cop shop on Saturday collecting my lost number plate and was reading a poster about the polices core objectives one of these stated (not an accurate quote) "to maintain confidence and respect from the public" (something along those lines) and I really thought mmmmmm thats a bit rich considering 90% of road users are nothing more than intimidated my the police particulary the HP, I use the word intimidated purposefully there because I strongly believe thats what is going on. For me I drive or ride on the road shit fucken scared of getting a ticket I know alot of people do.....................dont anyone give me that bullshit about if youre doing nothing wrong you have nothing to fear argument, because slight over the speed driving in my book is doing nothing wrong, so where do they draw the line then you ask?? well they draw the line individually using discretion, an art long since lost due to the undenyable quota system. I know the HP do have expectations of their officers such as performance, results etc, this is done by way of tickets issued. Okay Im not a cop dont know "absolute" but I have spent probably a 100 odd hours in a HP car and get the idea of how it all works.
For me I have nothing but respect for the general duties cop, I hold them in the highest regard possible, however the HP, the Government and the IRD are the same thing, they in effect do not do the NZrs a fair service, they intimidate and scare people, they all choose what they do and for me they sit around the social tiolet bowl of the population of this country (maybe a bit harsh)
NZ need to stand up and give a bit back, I do, my last ticket was in November and it was a right royal stitch up, I sent the officer a 5 page disclosure letter which made her freckin head spin, I only now after all that time have all the requested information to take it to court, sure I might have to pay but they really had to work for it. I even got a letter from some top cop wondering why I needed all this information.......... my role as a New Zealander is to give some of these pricks a bloody hard time, theyre wrong and I intend on making work as hard as possible.

Fuck did I really write all that.

Squeak the Rat

3rd July 2006, 09:49

We (NZ) gave it away to drop a road death toll that hasn't appreciably diminished, and thanks to an increase in the number of drivers with minimal skills training on the road, will probably gently trend upward to match population growth.

Kaching! That is the point that makes me believe 100% that it is a revenue gathering exercise. There are numerous over things that could be done to improve road safety in conjunction with road policing. But nothing of any substance is done....

Eg driver training. If we're talking about quotas, fail 25% of people who sit the driving test. Remember when tests used to mean people could fail......?

Ixion

3rd July 2006, 09:57

Y'know, the quota thing would have a lot more credibility if the quotas included other stuff. Like running red lights, failure to keep left, failure to indicate etc.

Is the quota (or target or whatever) only on speeding? I'm sure if I was a cop I could fill any quota in no time without a single speeding ticket.

One time I counted and between the Strand and Queen St (a distance of about 2km) I counted 21 instances where I'd have dished out a ticket if I were a cop. And that didn't include ANY speeding .Mind you, I'm a pernickity bastard. Good thing I was never a traffic cop, eh. 'Tis a fun exercise though, to pass the time on a boring commute (especially if you're in a cage). Just tot up the numbers. Incidentally , prolly a REALLY good diversion if you've got teenage kids in the car. Nought like teaching 'em young.

Lou Girardin

3rd July 2006, 10:12

They've toughened up on excessive speed in Italy too. And it's has reduced the road toll. The difference is that they were cracking down on 160 km/h plus speeds, not 11 km's over.
Autostrada limits are 130, traffic travels at 130 - 150 and you have to be doing 170 plus before you're at risk of losing your licence for a month. And even then the cop won't write you up unless there are aggravating factors.
I can't help wondering, if it really is about road safety, why isn't cop performance measured by the reduction of accidents in their areas?
Too embarrasing?

Quasievil

3rd July 2006, 10:16

Y'know, the quota thing would have a lot more credibility if the quotas included other stuff. Like running red lights, failure to keep left, failure to indicate etc.

Mate youre right there, the thing is human nature will always lead us to the least effort for the maximuim return, ie sit in a car and let a bit of technology do the work is was easier than a cop actually doing police work.

The whole police and road thing is fucked, all we have is a buncg of IRD staff collecting money for minor infringements, where is the police work in that????
alot of good stuff has been discussed on this thread, lots of good ideas, I firmly believe that these are realistic and achievable, Im even more certain that agreement would be forthcoming from the powers to be in regards to some of these ideas, But I can guarantee good solid workable road safety initiatives wont be realised in this country as long as we have a money grab culture of enforcement.
Why do they need money anyway????? for me I dont care about the cash fine, I care about the demerits, why do they take money and demerits from you ????? surely demerits is suitable and ample punishment alone.
Hows that for an idea, no cash fines, demerits only ......Yeah right

GIXser

3rd July 2006, 10:18

instead of turning this in to a cop bashing thread.....how about we turn it into a government bashing thread!!!

errrrr... BAsh em both"

scumdog

3rd July 2006, 10:19

Kaching! That is the point that makes me believe 100% that it is a revenue gathering exercise.

So, if the penalty was one demerit point for every km over the speed limit and there was NO monetary penalty it would make the KB anti-speed ticket whinging brigade ecstatic????
After all, it wouldn't be revenue gathering, would it?:wait:

BTW Why DO people post their anti-ticket complaints on KB?

Would it not be more constructive to collectively badger the politicians about it?

SPman

3rd July 2006, 10:27

Its a secret!!
Soo........its the Secret Policemans Ball!

Who's starring this year...........

Squeak the Rat

3rd July 2006, 10:28

So, if the penalty was one demerit point for every km over the speed limit and there was NO monetary penalty it would make the KB anti-speed ticket whinging brigade ecstatic????
After all, it wouldn't be revenue gathering, would it?:wait:

BTW Why DO people post their anti-ticket complaints on KB?

Would it not be more constructive to collectively badger the politicians about it?
See Quasi's post re the demerits. Good idea, but 1 demerit per km/hr is a bit excessive - Lou made a good point about other countries - in UK you can do 100mph on the motorways without too much bother.

The gripe is that road safety is given as the reason for draconian enforcement of one law, where other road laws are not targeted and other measures are ignored. Rule one of problem management - fix the root cause. Issuing tickets does not address the root cause.

We're human - we want things to be fair and we don't like being deceived..... or getting tickets :bleh:

quackquack

3rd July 2006, 11:06

I have to say the problem is with driver education If people stayed left when not passing and tried to look before they changed lanes we would save more lifes than stopping me doing 113 on state highway 1. Can some explain the difference between a quoter and a target sounds like someone has a PR microphone coming out there ass

Quasievil

3rd July 2006, 11:20

So, if the penalty was one demerit point for every km over the speed limit and there was NO monetary penalty it would make the KB anti-speed ticket whinging brigade ecstatic????
After all, it wouldn't be revenue gathering, would it?:wait:

BTW Why DO people post their anti-ticket complaints on KB?

Yes it would make me extremely happy if this was introduced Mr Scumdog, also it should make the police on the beat extremely happy also as they wont be compared to the IRD, Im sure that pisses you guys n gals off. One of the sad things with the cops on the beat is I truly believe they joined the force to make a difference and thats admirable, once they are in and get assigned to HP, or join (or whatever) how quickly does their moral plummet knowing they are menacing the public for minor speed infringments? I know a large number of HP are very disheartened with what they do.
I also know that alot of general duties cops are a bit pissed with the flashy HP guys with the flash gear and nicer cars.

answer me this, do you think their would be as many resourses poured into the apparent "road safety inititives" if there was no money involved in ticketing? I could answer that for myself but would be interested in your view.

Squeak the Rat

3rd July 2006, 11:45

answer me this, do you think their would be as many resourses poured into the apparent "road safety inititives" if there was no money involved in ticketing? I could answer that for myself but would be interested in your view.
(Quasi fix the quote or he might not read this....)

Compulsory breath testing - any time any where.

I've been stopped once in the last 17 years of driving / riding. And I've been everywhere everytime.....

Yet I saw 8 HP cars between Miranda and Bombay yesterday (about 40kph of really busy road, most of it dble yellow lines). Speeding is evidently more dangerous than drink driving....

scumdog

3rd July 2006, 12:04

Yes I also know that alot of general duties cops are a bit pissed with the flashy HP guys with the flash gear and nicer cars.

answer me this, do you think their would be as many resourses poured into the apparent "road safety inititives" if there was no money involved in ticketing? I could answer that for myself but would be interested in your view.

A couple of points:
A lot of cops join HP because it takes a lot of pressure off them, compared to general duties it is seen as cruisier as you have less shift work, more flexible working hours/places, don't go on call, get decent gear etc etc (at least down here) - all for the same money as GD.

I give out a lot of warning AND almost half of my tickets are compliance ones - and nobody from above has ever complained about THAT, despite the fact it actually costs the Gov't money (cost of my time, cost of ticket, lack of revenue gathered etc.)

But you never here anybody on this site saying "Thank you Officer Scumdog for warning me/giving me compliance" etc, maybe only disgruntled people have time/inclination to post?

Observation: 'Nice' members of society do show pleasant surprise at getting a 'compliance' ticket, - low lifes expect/demand it for EVERYTHING and whinge like a KBer when they don't get it. "I'm going to the station to see your boss about this" - 'Go for it sunshine' is the usual response.

Squeak the Rat

3rd July 2006, 12:13

But you never here anybody on this site saying "Thank you Officer Scumdog for warning me/giving me compliance" etc, maybe only disgruntled people have time/inclination to post?

Observation: 'Nice' members of society do show pleasant surprise at getting a 'compliance' ticket, - low lifes expect/demand it for EVERYTHING and whinge like a KBer when they don't get it. "I'm going to the station to see your boss about this" - 'Go for it sunshine' is the usual response.
If I say "Thanks Officer Scumdog" to the next officer that pulls me over, can I claim mistaken identity as I get pepper sprayed :rofl:

James Deuce

3rd July 2006, 12:13

Compulsory breath testing - any time any where.

In one particularly hideous night, where my brother-in-law was diagnosed with Hodgkins lymphoma, I had to race to the Wairarapa, collect my Mother-in-law, come back to Lower Hutt and collect my Aunty who was on the same flight, and get them both to Wellington Airport for a 4:30am check in. I left at 2:30am.

On the way back from the Airport to the Hutt to collapse into bed I was stopped at 5 checkpoints. One at the Mt Vic tunnel, one going on to the motorway at Vivian St, one just past the Nauranaga interchange on SH2, one at Petone Bowl, and one at Maungaraki lights.

At Maungaraki I lost it. I demanded a blood test. They wheeled the bus up from Petone Bowl. I demanded to speak to the area supervisor. There was push and shove, but to the guy's eternal credit, he just kept trying to calm me down. In the US I would have been riddled with holes by now. The guy I was talking to knew a bloke on the verge of going postal when he saw one, so I found myself talking to Rob Robinson - luckily a friend of a friend, and I'd been out to dinner with him once in the dim dark past.

He talked me down out of my tree. I explained what my night had been like, including getting stuck behind a frigging ex-railways building on the Rimutakas and managing to squeeze past it much to the disgust of the guys moving it. They don't like people driving under one edge of a moving building. It's now the White Swan hotel in Greytown. We don;t give NZ cops enough credit for defusing situations instead of escalating them. I understand the thought behind the blitz & booze bus mentality. I don't agree with the law change that allows Police to detain people without suspicion of commiting a crime. Oddly enough I found out that night that a number of Police personnel don't either.

I get stopped in the car all the time. I've only been stopped on the bike once.

jimbo600

3rd July 2006, 12:43

A couple of points:
A lot of cops join HP because it takes a lot of pressure off them, compared to general duties it is seen as cruisier as you have less shift work, more flexible working hours/places, don't go on call, get decent gear etc etc (at least down here) - all for the same money as GD.

I give out a lot of warning AND almost half of my tickets are compliance ones - and nobody from above has ever complained about THAT, despite the fact it actually costs the Gov't money (cost of my time, cost of ticket, lack of revenue gathered etc.)

But you never here anybody on this site saying "Thank you Officer Scumdog for warning me/giving me compliance" etc, maybe only disgruntled people have time/inclination to post?

Observation: 'Nice' members of society do show pleasant surprise at getting a 'compliance' ticket, - low lifes expect/demand it for EVERYTHING and whinge like a KBer when they don't get it. "I'm going to the station to see your boss about this" - 'Go for it sunshine' is the usual response.

Thanks Scumdg (just in case I get stopped down sth in the future)

James Deuce

3rd July 2006, 12:45

SPman

3rd July 2006, 13:00

as an aside...http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10389442

madboy

3rd July 2006, 13:00

I have tremendous respect for the IRD, they are honest about what they do. They are there to take your money, Te Tari Taake. The Police don't have the balls to admit that. Sure, we all know they're driven by LTNZ, but at least they could be honest about it.

What happened to discretion? Back in the day (the early-mid 90s) I'd stop for 120k and expect to get a telling off. I'd pretend I was sorry, he'd pretend he believed me, and I'd be off on my merry little way thinking shit that was lucky, I'd better be good - which lasted for at least half an hour before I forgot all about it. Now everytime a cop looks at me I put the hammer down. I respond the same for 11 over as I do for 171 over. Why? Because I hate the law? No. Because I don't want to get a speeding ticket? No. Because I'm worried about demerit points? No. Because I'm worried about losing my license? No. $600 and 50 demerits doesn't worry me. 100 demerits in 2 years doesn't worry me. 3 months driving/riding disqualified doesn't worry me.

I'm shit scared of my insurance company. Since I know that everytime I get pulled over for speeding I WILL get a ticket, and it's now the exception that I won't, I don't want to take the risk of angering the insurance company for piddly little tickets. Might as well give them something real to gripe about. At least I'm honest about that.

Edit: Difference between pre-anal policing and now is that before I stopped more often, now I don't. It was safer for me and the public pre-anal. Wonder how that's represented in their stats?

Patrick

3rd July 2006, 13:03

, so where do they draw the line then you ask?? .

Somewhere just after those little white circular signs with the red borders that say... "100" or "50" or "70" (or dare I say "30") me thinks.... Road code sed summit about them being maximums????

Squeak the Rat

3rd July 2006, 13:07

Somewhere just after those little white circular signs with the red borders that say... "100" or "50" or "70" (or dare I say "30") me thinks.... Road code sed summit about them being maximums????
No, no, no. I've seen some billboards that say they are targets......

Patrick

3rd July 2006, 13:10

Patrick

3rd July 2006, 13:11

(Quasi fix the quote or he might not read this....)

Compulsory breath testing - any time any where.

I've been stopped once in the last 17 years of driving / riding. And I've been everywhere everytime.....

Yet I saw 8 HP cars between Miranda and Bombay yesterday (about 40kph of really busy road, most of it dble yellow lines). Speeding is evidently more dangerous than drink driving....

Couldn't help but wonder if they were there for the yellow lines, not speed?????

Patrick

3rd July 2006, 13:13

What happened to discretion? Back in the day (the early-mid 90s) I'd stop for 120k and expect to get a telling off. I'd pretend I was sorry, he'd pretend he believed me, and I'd be off on my merry little way thinking shit that was lucky, I'd better be good - which lasted for at least half an hour before I forgot all about it.

You've summed it up yourself... warnings don't woprk, or so we have been told... are the bosses right, perhaps??????? If unsure, read above again....

scumdog

3rd July 2006, 13:24

Edit: Difference between pre-anal policing and now is that before I stopped more often, now I don't. It was safer for me and the public pre-anal. Wonder how that's represented in their stats?

Sheesh, who CARES if it is represented? Whatever happens when YOU don't stop is on YOUR head.

Grow up. (or stop trolling)

BTW In other countries warning go down against your name on the Big Brother 'puter - so the insurance guys still get to know if you've been riding like a dick - even if it hasn't actually cost you money.

SPman

3rd July 2006, 13:31

They seem to have lost point of the fact that the road toll has mainly dropped because of safer vehicles, things like ABS, crumple zones, air bags and now, vehicle stability control, which is becoming compulsory in Europe - so we should see it here in 15 years time! And generally better roads.
Also the vehicles handle a lot better than old shitheaps like ford V8 s and stuff - even the bikes - speed is just so much easier these days......

Str8 Jacket

3rd July 2006, 13:34

Sheesh, who CARES if it is represented? Whatever happens when YOU don't stop is on YOUR head.

And when you dont stop the other people that you ride with end up paying for your fuck up instead.

Pixie

3rd July 2006, 13:38

scumdog

3rd July 2006, 13:47

The cops are lazy fucks.
A fax from an anonymous cop on the tv today said he was required to make 6 contacts an hour and write 3 tickets.
I'm sure he would be able to find sufficient reasons to stop motorists at that rate, other than for speed.
But they ignore most of the non speed infringements

Yup we're lazy all right - who want's to argue with someone that says "It was orange when I went through" or "I never crossed over the yellow line" or "I DID indicate" when you can say "See, there's your speed sonny - and here's your ticket too"

BTW Did the fax say ALL tickets were to have a monatary penalty - as opposed to compliance "Idon't think so Tim"

Goin by Pixies comment from now on I'm going to ride on the wrong side of the road, fail to stop at stop signs and never indicate - as long as I'm not speeding I'll be right jack.

Pixie

3rd July 2006, 13:55

Its not about revenue gathering or road safety, its all about getting more tickets than your colleagues so that you can make them shout the first round at the policemans ball!
NZ Police don't have balls

Lou Girardin

3rd July 2006, 13:59

Of course warnings don't work. People don't consider 11 or 15 km/h over to be in any way dangerous.
Tickets don't stop them doing it either.

Pixie

3rd July 2006, 14:02

Yup we're lazy all right - who want's to argue with someone that says "It was orange when I went through" or "I never crossed over the yellow line" or "I DI indicate" when you can say "See, there's your speed sonny - and here's your ticket too"

BTW Did the fax say ALL tickets were to have a monatary penalty - as opposed to compliance "Idon't think so Tim"

Goin by Pixies comment from now on I'm going to ride on the wrong side of the road, fail to stop at stop signs and never indicate - as long as I'm not speeding I'll be right jack.
The point I was making( the same as Ixion's) is that theyLook for the easy stuff they can get with the tech toys.
Why do you argue with motorists,anyway ?
If they go through a yellow,give them a ticket.
The fact that cops get into arguements with motorists,shows that they don't really feel that there is any point in the exercise of road enforcement and they are defensive about it

sAsLEX

3rd July 2006, 14:06

Couldn't help but wonder if they were there for the yellow lines, not speed?????

well maybe they should actually put some thought behind where the lines are, best example is on SH2 yellow the whole fuckin way

and yesterday went past one set of yellow lines that was yellow along a nice good vis straight and ended just before a blind cresting corner , yellow lines should only be treated as rough suggestions now that they paint them everywhere

scumdog

3rd July 2006, 14:15

The point I was making( the same as Ixion's) is that theyLook for the easy stuff they can get with the tech toys.
Why do you argue with motorists,anyway ?
If they go through a yellow,give them a ticket.
The fact that cops get into arguements with motorists,shows that they don't really feel that there is any point in the exercise of road enforcement and they are defensive about it

OK, I exaggerated - they rant, we walk (eventually), it's not an argument.

Squeak the Rat

3rd July 2006, 14:16

well maybe they should actually put some thought behind where the lines are, best example is on SH2 yellow the whole fuckin way

and yesterday went past one set of yellow lines that was yellow along a nice good vis straight and ended just before a blind cresting corner , yellow lines should only be treated as rough suggestions now that they paint them everywhere
It's safer if motorists don't spend any time on the other side of the road. No thought is given to how unsafe it gets when people get pissed off with slow traffic though. I had an example similar to sAsLEX yesterday. Long straight road, recently double yellow'd. It was safe enough to pass so I did (quickly) - if i got pinged then so be it.

Trouble with that is that people start disbelieving yellow lines. They used to be a great tool to advise that there was actually a blind corner of dip in the road etc.

Personally I blame the lazy coppas....

Quasievil

3rd July 2006, 14:41

Yup we're lazy all right - who want's to argue with someone that says "It was orange when I went through" or "I never crossed over the yellow line" or "I DID indicate" when you can say "See, there's your speed sonny - and here's your ticket too"

BTW Did the fax say ALL tickets were to have a monatary penalty - as opposed to compliance "Idon't think so Tim"

Goin by Pixies comment from now on I'm going to ride on the wrong side of the road, fail to stop at stop signs and never indicate - as long as I'm not speeding I'll be right jack.

I want to be clear by saying that Im only against the extreme policing of speed and the lack of discretion used these days by the HP. When it comes to offences like, crossing double yellow lines, failing to stop, dangerous overtaking, not giving way.......etc etc etc, I think if you do that you should get nailed, because overtaking on yellow lines is inviting a head on crash, failing to stop on a stop sign is inviting a crash, and so forth, bringing back the speeding issue, I fail to see how a person doing a minor offence of 112kmph on a nice piece of road in light traffic who is in obvious control of the situation is going to cause a crash (I hear a response before it is said,that being, it will likely cause a crash when someone fails to stop at a stop sign? fair enough, but that is still not the fault of the speeder its the fault of the stop sign runner and anyway it wouldnt of mattered if the speeder was going slower)

I wrote the above and am now going to take a change of tac............

If the speeder doing 112kmph was going along the nice bit of road approached a intersection and the other driver failed to stop and there was an impact, Okay the slighty speeding driver was breaking the law, to a higher degree the stop sign runner is breaking the law, ie both drivers could have been ticketed..........but werent, would the slightly speeding driver have survived if he was doing only 100kmph? well maybe, if he had been ticketed earlier and had corrected his/her speed would they still be alive???
well maybe.

So in saying all that and contridicting pretty much everything I have said thus far have I therefore justified the relentless ticketing regime?
maybe.
what say you people?

Mr. Peanut

3rd July 2006, 14:45

She also attempted to put to rest accusations that police engage in "revenue collecting". "I've got no interest in the revenue. It's peanuts next to the cost of death, suffering and rehabilitation. It's peanuts."

Eh? :innocent:

eliot-ness

3rd July 2006, 15:25

Quote. I have no interest in the revenue. It's Peanuts. Quote

There you have it. Straight from the horses mouth as it were. It's all yours mate. Now go and collect it before she changes her mind.

Mr. Peanut

3rd July 2006, 15:44

death, suffering and rehabilitation. It's peanuts

Therein lies the catch. :bye:

James Deuce

3rd July 2006, 15:55

Quote. I have no interest in the revenue. It's Peanuts. Quote

There you have it. Straight from the horses mouth as it were. It's all yours mate. Now go and collect it before she changes her mind.

What a load of shit. There is no rehab available to accident victims. Suffering is dealt with by the individual. There's no one who gives a shit in the health system about chronic pain sufferers. Death? Covered by insurance mostly.

Our health system can't keep a gold medal winning paraplegic (Gold medal in the Commonwealth "abled" games I might add) alive past 60. Paralysed in a motorcycle accident. They (the pollies) can't use that argument and expect any sympathy for the revenue stance.

SPman

3rd July 2006, 16:17

so - if we're caught speeding - can we just hand over a bag of dry roasted in lieu of a fine???

terbang

3rd July 2006, 17:13

Watching the Television and Commisioner, commodore, superintendant, or whoever is facing the media questions and as predicted he denies any sort of quota system, playing with words etc. Drops a few ego stroking sentences for the pollies and bla bla bla, same old spin we allways get from these guys. What can we expect from an organisation that can basicly get away with anything it likes, including allegations of rape at a high level.. They eventually get thier pensions so and it makes no difference whether they do a good (real) job or just appease the pollies and pull the wool over our eyes. .
Reading the posts here from our resident Rozzers I see defence of the current road policy and a reluctance to admit the system may be wrong. Is this because:
(1) They are stupid (I dont think so).
(2) They are wearing the blinkers of indoctrination (quite likely for some).
(3) Hanging in there for their pension and dont give a fuck or too scared to have their say and lose the pension..
(4) The current road piolicy on speed is 100% correct and we should all just shut up because we are all wrong..?

Squeak the Rat

3rd July 2006, 17:31

Number 2 is likely for one or two but not most i reckon.....

While I agree with a lot you are saying, we gotta remember that we are basically attacking these guys jobs, so fair dues that they come back defensive at times. Some of the views on here are quite one sided, so their natural tendency is to argue the other side.

Having said that, I also think that some might change their views if they didn't live in the bottom of the south island, where things are a little more "relaxed".....

Personally I reckon it's good having the coppas on here, if for nothing else than to get a feeling for the cops point of view (know your enemy!). Most of them even seem like decent funny bastards. I don't think it was your intention but I'd like to not make it personal against them.....

And DO NOT MAKE ME DEFEND THE COPPAS EVER AGAIN! It felt strangely pleasing but now i feel sick and unclean......:sick:

Indoo

3rd July 2006, 17:32

Saying its not a quota system is just a matter of symantics really. Traffic cops are judged performance wise on the amount of hours they deliver and the amount of tickets they give out in relation to those hours. They get the same 'credit' for giving out a ticket for a guy doing 111kmh on a deserted highway as they do for giving a ticket to an idiot doing 90kmhs down a residential street.

I dunno why people are suprised, it's what you get when you attempt to privatise everything and focus on business models and ideals. The day the LTSA and Guvmint were able to 'contract' Police and essentially force the traffic arm into business ideals and values was a sad one imo.

SPman

3rd July 2006, 17:38

And now Transit NZ is in on the act, with its $233m "contribution" to the police for enhanced road safety!!!

terbang

3rd July 2006, 17:47

I dunno why people are suprised, it's what you get when you attempt to privatise everything and focus on business models and ideals. The day the LTSA and Guvmint were able to 'contract' Police and essentially force the traffic arm into business ideals and values was a sad one imo.

Gotta agree with yer there I personally just budget a couple of fines per year into my motoring expenses just like any other tax or fee and thats it.

Skytwr

3rd July 2006, 17:52

Like I thought i got your backs up.

The reason I get burglars etc while policing the roads is that like Drink drivers and Disqualified drivers they can not obey the road code and road rules and drive like complete dickheads. So they may as well drive around with a sign on them PICK ME. As i am on the road I listen to the other jobs around and are prepared to act when required. It is more oftern than not that the Police are given car details before offender details when jobs are given, this is because they DRIVE off. But I offer any body with the qualifications and the get up and go to Join up and then you to can be spat on, assaulted abused and have told to pissoff when you go to the 10th domestic of the shift.
And like every job there are the good staff and the bad staff and all you guys want to know is the bad ones so you can put the boot in to everyone. But hey I ride a motor bike and this my way of unwinding.

madboy

3rd July 2006, 17:57

Lou and Scumdog, I agree. Of course the warnings didn't work. But the rigid enforcement isn't working either. People are too scared to crack 110 in case they spontaneously combust, and yet you still get accidents. What gives? Could it be that human beings are naturally pre-disposed to making mistakes? And since cars are driven by human beings, mistakes will happen!

Most of the speed enforcement I've seen has been in areas of urban motorway, or other areas where higher speeds are "less unsafe". I wonder how many "speed" related accidents are actually from the person exceeding the speed limit, or going too fast for the conditions? You dump the bike on the takas, were you exceeding 100k when you lost it? Probably not. Were you riding too fast for the conditions? Quite likely. You don't see anyone getting busted for dangerous driving or crossing yellows up there? No. You see the cops at the bottom with the laser gun pointed at Kaitoke where it's big and open and as Jim2 pointed out "180-240k sweepers".

Str8, did the roses arrive darling?

ldnz

3rd July 2006, 18:43

Most of the speed enforcement I've seen has been in areas of urban motorway, or other areas where higher speeds are "less unsafe". I wonder how many "speed" related accidents are actually from the person exceeding the speed limit, or going too fast for the conditions? You dump the bike on the takas, were you exceeding 100k when you lost it? Probably not. Were you riding too fast for the conditions? Quite likely. You don't see anyone getting busted for dangerous driving or crossing yellows up there? No. You see the cops at the bottom with the laser gun pointed at Kaitoke where it's big and open and as Jim2 pointed out "180-240k sweepers".

Excellent points - but be careful, I can see the speed limit on that road dropping....

Paikak hill - 70 km/h WTF? Then again im yet to see anyone enforce it, and good luck trying.

Grahameeboy

3rd July 2006, 18:45

.)

But you never here anybody on this site saying "Thank you Officer Scumdog for warning me/giving me compliance" etc, maybe only disgruntled people have time/inclination to post?

.

Agree, I am about to lose my licence for totting up...okay the Officer could have given me a warning (see my thread back in April) but that is life but I tell you what it has made me think....I now need to apply for limited licence for my Daughter...okay I live in Devonport, get ferry to work so not a major....however, it has made me think about my responsibilities and whether I should sell the bike....I am not a hoon, always at back of groups but bikes are a magnet for tickets and I am jeopodising my custody of Natalie.

So good does come out it.

Da Bird

3rd July 2006, 18:59

Lou and Scumdog, I agree. Of course the warnings didn't work. But the rigid enforcement isn't working either. People are too scared to crack 110 in case they spontaneously combust, and yet you still get accidents. What gives?

Something is working. Last time I looked at the road toll stats (last week sometime), there were about 30 odd less deaths than the same time last year and last year was a relatively "good" year, compared to other years.

BC

madboy

3rd July 2006, 19:02

Paikak hill - 70 km/h WTF? Then again im yet to see anyone enforce it, and good luck trying.You don't spend much time up there then... I know of a couple of wgtn members who've met the fuzz up there, although one was only zinging so didn't get ticketed. The rigid enforcement might have dropped off though, the limit's been lowered for a while now.

GB, bikes are only magnets for tickets because of the way they are ridden.

Dafe

3rd July 2006, 19:03

Just as well he was zinging and not zening or he'd have been fooked!

madboy

3rd July 2006, 19:05

Something is working. Last time I looked at the road toll stats (last week sometime), there were about 30 odd less deaths than the same time last year and last year was a relatively "good" year, compared to other years.

BCI'm sure the 200 or so that are already dead this year agree with you. How many of them were caused by people doing more than 11k over the limit?

Da Bird

3rd July 2006, 19:11

I'm sure the 200 or so that are already dead this year agree with you. How many of them were caused by people doing more than 11k over the limit?

A fair few of them I would imagine... given that alcohol accounts for about 33% of fatal accidents and speed is now higher than that, moving into the number one spot for the biggest cause of fatal crashes.

terbang

3rd July 2006, 19:14

Big ups to the police commisioner who has just been on TV telling us the truth about how it is. As suspected the quota system and cops competing is well alive and kicking..

GIXser

3rd July 2006, 19:18

A couple of points:
A lot of cops join HP because it takes a lot of pressure off them, compared to general duties it is seen as cruisier as you have less shift work, more flexible working hours/places, don't go on call, get decent gear etc etc (at least down here) - all for the same money as GD.

I give out a lot of warning AND almost half of my tickets are compliance ones - and nobody from above has ever complained about THAT, despite the fact it actually costs the Gov't money (cost of my time, cost of ticket, lack of revenue gathered etc.)

But you never here anybody on this site saying "Thank you Officer Scumdog for warning me/giving me compliance" etc, maybe only disgruntled people have time/inclination to post?

Observation: 'Nice' members of society do show pleasant surprise at getting a 'compliance' ticket, - low lifes expect/demand it for EVERYTHING and whinge like a KBer when they don't get it. "I'm going to the station to see your boss about this" - 'Go for it sunshine' is the usual response.

you stand corrected, i have read many threads where individuals have praised officers for "only giving them a warning"

ldnz

3rd July 2006, 19:18

You don't spend much time up there then... I know of a couple of wgtn members who've met the fuzz up there, although one was only zinging so didn't get ticketed. The rigid enforcement might have dropped off though, the limit's been lowered for a while now.

GB, bikes are only magnets for tickets because of the way they are ridden.

No your right, I don't get down there enough. It must be bloody hard to patrol. How fast can the officer / radar react?

Just caught the news - hugely amusing but at the same time very disappointing. At least we got some degree of honesty though...

WINJA

3rd July 2006, 19:33

A fair few of them I would imagine... given that alcohol accounts for about 33% of fatal accidents and speed is now higher than that, moving into the number one spot for the biggest cause of fatal crashes.
STATISTICS AND DAMN LIES , THE PIGS MANIPULATE REPORTS AND FIGURES AND THEN YOU PROUDLY SPOUT THEM OFF LIKE FACTS, ITS JUST A FCKEN MONEY GRAB SO STFU

Da Bird

3rd July 2006, 19:51

SO STFU

No. :moon:

spudchucka

3rd July 2006, 20:25

Uncle ALAN the STOREY teller will like that
No cigar I'm afraid, according to my spies any way.

spudchucka

3rd July 2006, 20:27

spudchucka

3rd July 2006, 20:35

This is bullshit. In over 36 years of motorcycling and driving I have lost count of the number of times I've been stopped. A few of these have resulted in traffic tickets some of which were deserved. Not once, of all those times, have I been accused of being a burglar.

Perhaps we should ask everyone on here how many times they have stopped, compared to how many times they have been arrested for burglary.
Why not ask some of the cops on this forum, (who repeatedly offer honest evaluations of current policing issues), how often, in their experience, a simple traffic stop turns into something much bigger instead of just dismissing it as bullshit? I've locked up heaps of burglars and drug dealers as a result of a basic traffic stop and having a nose for sniffing dodgy buggers. Pretty much ever cop in the country would have a story to tell about a simple turnover that resulted in a really good lock up.

WINJA

3rd July 2006, 20:40

Why not ask some of the cops on this forum, (who repeatedly offer honest evaluations of current policing issues), how often, in their experience, a simple traffic stop turns into something much bigger instead of just dismissing it as bullshit? I've locked up heaps of burglars and drug dealers as a result of a basic traffic stop and having a nose for sniffing dodgy buggers. Pretty much ever cop in the country would have a story to tell about a simple turnover that resulted in a really good lock up.
I HEARD IN SOME COUNTRYS THEY JUST CATCH CRIMS WITH GOOD POLICE WORK INSTEAD OF HARRASING EVERY ONE

Jantar

3rd July 2006, 20:40

Why not ask some of the cops on this forum, (who repeatedly offer honest evaluations of current policing issues), how often, in their experience, a simple traffic stop turns into something much bigger instead of just dismissing it as bullshit? I've locked up heaps of burglars and drug dealers as a result of a basic traffic stop and having a nose for sniffing dodgy buggers. Pretty much ever cop in the country would have a story to tell about a simple turnover that resulted in a really good lock up.

Spud, I don't doubt for one moment that you and other cops have caught criminals through traffic stops. I would be very suprised if you hadn't. My beef is that a cop would use that as an excuse to justify stopping vehicles. It should be an additional benefit, not the primary reason.

spudchucka

3rd July 2006, 20:43

Thats utter bollocks. I've heard that crap before in relation to drug pushers too and its just wank. To catch a burg of a drugie you would have to search their car, now on what piece of legislation can you do that while issuing a ION?? And don't come back with the search without warrant thing under the misuse of drugs act as its got to be a pretty big call to use that one.

If you arrested me for stolen property while issuing a ticket and I wasn't arrested I'd walk.

What a crock of bullshit
There are heaps of statutory powers of search, not just MODA and if I'm issuing an ION and I smell cannabis then you can expect to be searched too.

If I arrested you for stolen property and you weren't under arrest then I'd expect you would walk too but since I would have arrested you for stolen property I would have arrested you again for escaping custody if you decided to bugger off despite being under arrest. Copy??:blip:

Bottom line is he aint talking bullshit, traffic turnovers are basic part of good policing and it results in very good policing outcomes on a daily basis.

Scouse

3rd July 2006, 20:44

Pretty much ever cop in the country would have a story to tell about a simple turnover that resulted in a really good lock up.Only to be kicked in the guts by the sentancing Judge when he hands out a piss weak 20 hours community service or family group conferance sentance

SPman

3rd July 2006, 20:54

A fair few of them I would imagine... given that alcohol accounts for about 33% of fatal accidents and speed is now higher than that, moving into the number one spot for the biggest cause of fatal crashes.
Speed, per se, isnt. It can be a large factor if everything turns to shit, but the actual cause of the series of events starting to unravel that leads to a biggy is usually something else. There are lots of drivers out there who are liabilities at 80k on the open road and they are causing major accidents. Yet they are still "safe"? Because they arent exceeding 100K.
The current policies are leaving drivers scared of speed, and, if you are scared of it, its going to bite you just as surely as if you are too blase about it. Some intelligent propoganda, like the 2 second rule adverts, with Brock, from a few years ago would be a start!

igor

3rd July 2006, 20:57

There are heaps of statutory powers of search, not just MODA and if I'm issuing an ION and I smell cannabis then you can expect to be searched too.

me i like the "fish n chip act 2006" the best

Quasievil

3rd July 2006, 20:58

Fatal road crashes are kinda like unemployment, its a fact of life ie we in New Zealand have about 3% unemployment that is basically because 3% of the population are unemployable for whatever reason, the road toll well its also a given you will always have (while humans drive cars etc) 600 odd road deaths. The police and other agencies over rate their abilities to think for a moment they can reduce the road toll to any level which will be acceptable to anyone, the only inititiave that will EVER work is the improvements in Vehicle safety , airbags etc. As well as this improvements in the actual roads, these are the areas where focus should be made, not ticketing, the large percentage of ticketing is pointless and can never offer any result for anything of substance.
The police often spout out stats which are aimed to impress, I think a large part of the reduction of road deaths can be contributed to the improvements on the car fleet we drive in and the roads we drive on.
Example.......... the soon to be completed road between Auckland and Hamilton will soon be completed (THANK FUCK) this WILL reduce the road toll, Im sure amongst the stats that will be spat out to us by the LTSA or police or what ever will praise increased road patrols and police presence which created the improvement thereby justifying the intimidation tactic they impose on the innocent motorist, when in actual fact it had nothing to do with it.
Food for thought? speaking of which where is me bloody ice cream and peaches

spudchucka

3rd July 2006, 20:58

Y'know, the quota thing would have a lot more credibility if the quotas included other stuff. Like running red lights, failure to keep left, failure to indicate etc.

Is the quota (or target or whatever) only on speeding? I'm sure if I was a cop I could fill any quota in no time without a single speeding ticket.
The "quota" is nothing more than a way the cops measure performance of their staff. They expect their staff to delivery X amount of traffic enforcement hours, (contracted to the agencies that supply funding) and for each hour delivered they expect that the cop will detect at least one offence for each hour they deliver.

Its not just speed, they also allocate hours for drink driving, restraints and general driver behaviour.

If you want to be rid of "the quota" then you will have to change the way the police are funded and change the way the police measure the performance of their staff, (for traffic enforcement at least).

spudchucka

3rd July 2006, 21:01

why isn't cop performance measured by the reduction of accidents in their areas?
Because the reality is that the cops can't control every persons actions all of the time. They can only influence driver behaviour through enforcement.

spudchucka

3rd July 2006, 21:16

I dunno why people are suprised, it's what you get when you attempt to privatise everything and focus on business models and ideals. The day the LTSA and Guvmint were able to 'contract' Police and essentially force the traffic arm into business ideals and values was a sad one imo.
This is the total crux of the issue of road policing and ticket quotas. Change the way the police are funded, take away the influence of outside agencies that have their own agendas and use their funding advantage to get the results they want from policing and you will solve "the quota problem".

spudchucka

3rd July 2006, 21:31

Spud, I don't doubt for one moment that you and other cops have caught criminals through traffic stops. I would be very suprised if you hadn't. My beef is that a cop would use that as an excuse to justify stopping vehicles. It should be an additional benefit, not the primary reason.
A cop will most of the time stop a driver pursuant to the land transport act, often once a vehicle is stopped other offences are disclosed so the cop will deal with them as fit. There is also a power under the crimes act to stop vehicles and exercise statutory powers of search but there needs to be reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has or is being committed before you can stop a vehicle under this power, so it used less often.

The land transport act allows you to stop a vehicle to check a drivers licence, check the vehicle etc etc. Its once the vehicle is stopped and the driver's details are checked etc that other offences come to light. Heaps of wanted crims are locked up on warrants as a result of traffic stops for instance. Also I would bet my right nut on the stats relating to misuse of drugs act searches being largely the result of a traffic stop.

We often get calls about suspicious people or cars. If we didn't have the powers under the land transport act to stop vehicles then a suspicious car would probably just be left alone to drive away without ever stopping it, findingh out who is in the vehicle and having the opportunity to ask them what they are up to.

In short, the powers under the land transport act aren't just a tool for targeting traffic offences, they also provide police a great general crime fighting tool.

Quasievil

3rd July 2006, 21:32

On another level not as a biker but as a car driver who drives all over the country all the time, Im sick of having to spend as much time watching my speedo as I do the bloody road. Im a excellent driver, I have not crashed a vehicle on the road in 25 years bike or car, not even a scratch, Im on about 50 demerit points, if I loose a seconds concentration on my speed at the worst time and drift over the "threshold" on a couple of occasions in the next year or so and thats my license gone, how fair is that??? is that intimidation?? I dont like having the stigma of police intimidation in my countries roads and I dont want my country to regards the peoples roads as a PROFIT CENTRE as it is now, I want sensible effective road safety initiatives like driver training, sensible youth restrictions on vehicle powers, better roads built for dum people not roads with freckin huge bumps in it with the only warning being a sign saying "bumpy road" and that being the satisfactory solution, lastly I want roads where I can drive without the appearance of a HP car instilling the fear of god into me as I panick to check my speed isnt over the threshold of acceptable limits as the hill im driving down has with the help of gravity encoraged me to do so,
me "I could have braked officer but the 18 wheeler forestry truck was on my arse"
Cop "yeah sorry mate but that was a little fast look to help out I will drop it from 116kmph to 112kmph ok"
Me" Oh thanks"

5 Minutes later

me " yup the police bunch of arseholes"

How many times a day some a similiar situation occur? a few I bet , down hill tickets have got me twice , one 112kmph, one 114kmph, what was the point actually????

spudchucka

3rd July 2006, 21:32

Only to be kicked in the guts by the sentancing Judge when he hands out a piss weak 20 hours community service or family group conferance sentance
Sadly thats likely to be the case but its no reason for cops to stop trying to lock up criminals.

jimbo600

3rd July 2006, 21:33

There are heaps of statutory powers of search, not just MODA and if I'm issuing an ION and I smell cannabis then you can expect to be searched too.

If I arrested you for stolen property and you weren't under arrest then I'd expect you would walk too but since I would have arrested you for stolen property I would have arrested you again for escaping custody if you decided to bugger off despite being under arrest. Copy??:blip:

Bottom line is he aint talking bullshit, traffic turnovers are basic part of good policing and it results in very good policing outcomes on a daily basis.

Fair enough. Better not carry all my stolen goods in the car then.

By walking I was referring to court as in illegal search, inadmissible evidence etc

spudchucka

3rd July 2006, 21:34

me i like the "fish n chip act 2006" the best
2006?? I thought you would still be operating under the 1975 version.

spudchucka

3rd July 2006, 21:42

Fair enough. Better not carry all my stolen goods in the car then.

By walking I was referring to court as in illegal search, inadmissible evidence etc
Yeah, I know what you meant, I was just being a smart arse.

There are plenty of statutory powers of search including one to search for stolen goods, sections 314B, 224 & 225 for instance.

Timber020

3rd July 2006, 21:50

Thought I should add this piece of info

There isnt a quota, there are targets and LTNZ has a percentage increase on this target over time. Ie the targets keep increasing so the quota which isnt a quota is increased, which apparently has especially high focus on the above 111kmph "criminals.

The horse told me so

Grahameeboy

3rd July 2006, 21:55

.

GB, bikes are only magnets for tickets because of the way they are ridden.

Totally agree...I guess I was trying to say that the nature of bikes puts us in those situations even if ridden well........given that you like speed according to your profile....can I arrest my point....pretty please??

Both times I got done for 130k in out of the way traffic clear areas...was a regular haunt of mine....I was not riding like a hoon....after 25 years keeping clean I ran out of lives....all my tickets have been riding bike.....chances of me getting pinged in my people carrier are virtually zero.

No arguments and I have learned from it.

Squeak the Rat

3rd July 2006, 22:09

And now we pay witness to a hypothetical situation in which our hero Officer Nobchez reports back to the staton after a day on patrol.

Sgt: How many tickets Nobby?

Oficer Nobchez: None, every one was driving safely. I warned a couple of drivers who were going 115 but they looked in control.

Sgt: Well done Nobby, thanks for making the roads safer and doing good PR. Have a payrise and a donut.

scumdog

3rd July 2006, 23:34

scumdog

3rd July 2006, 23:38

I HEARD IN SOME COUNTRYS THEY JUST CATCH CRIMS WITH GOOD POLICE WORK INSTEAD OF HARRASING EVERY ONE

No bites?
You'll have to troll better than that, maybe even use a bit of berley....

igor

4th July 2006, 07:01

if we don't get a decent pay rise. (like up to 20% the prison guards got)

I thought I might take 1 day off sick a week as psuedo pay rise.

that should take me over 4 1/2 years to use the 233 days I have

Lou Girardin

4th July 2006, 08:10

Because the reality is that the cops can't control every persons actions all of the time. They can only influence driver behaviour through enforcement.

That is not the point. If enforcement is the silver bullet, it would be reducing accident rates overall. But we know it's not.
That's the embarrassment for your bosses.
It's a bit like the Yanks 'winning' in Vietnam by focussing on the body count, all the while they were losing the war.

jimbo600

4th July 2006, 08:12

Yeah, I know what you meant, I was just being a smart arse.

There are plenty of statutory powers of search including one to search for stolen goods, sections 314B, 224 & 225 for instance.

Of the Crimes Act?

Lou Girardin

4th July 2006, 08:12

This is the total crux of the issue of road policing and ticket quotas. Change the way the police are funded, take away the influence of outside agencies that have their own agendas and use their funding advantage to get the results they want from policing and you will solve "the quota problem".

Add to this, Police funding must be completely separated from Police revenue production.

scumdog

4th July 2006, 09:23

Add to this, Police funding must be completely separated from Police revenue production.

No worries, they'll probably cut the staff numbers to compensate though.

Or link the two through a 'back door' system, after all, how are they going to keep them separate, - money into Govt coffers - Govt pay Police....fairly hard to police (sorry about the pun, couldn't resist)

Swoop

4th July 2006, 09:55

If I say "Thanks Officer Scumdog" to the next officer that pulls me over, can I claim mistaken identity as I get pepper sprayed :rofl:
Nope, TAZER trials are underway, thanks for volunteering though...

Motu

4th July 2006, 10:26

sAsLEX

4th July 2006, 10:31

WoF inpectors work to a ''target'' too.LTNZ monitor our pass/fail rate - if you pass or fail too many they'll come and have a look at you - you need to pass some,and fail some,25% fail rate is good....I have a 50% fail rate....is that better?

Nice troll, surely someone like Contenential Cars would have a far lower fail rate due to economic positioning of their clientel compared to you!

Ixion

4th July 2006, 10:34

WoF inpectors work to a ''target'' too.LTNZ monitor our pass/fail rate - if you pass or fail too many they'll come and have a look at you - you need to pass some,and fail some,25% fail rate is good....I have a 50% fail rate....is that better?

Is the target rate the same for bikes as cars? 'Cos it shouldn't be, on account of bikes it's really hard to fail a WoF, so if a bike inspector was getting the "normal" fail rate applicable to cars, he would have to be being really cuntish.

hsvboy06

4th July 2006, 11:55

I find it amazing that so many people here say the cops are being too strict giving tickets for 112 km/h and the like. The speed limit is 100 and that is a MAXIMUM, not a target, so at 112 you're already 12% over the maximum. How much leeway do you want? The problem is that everyone thinks the cops give you a 10% tolerance, so now they just assume the maximum is actually 110, and then complain when they get caught doing 2 kmph over that. Get over it. If you can't control your speed within 10%, aim for 90.

I think the safest speed (especially on a bike) is the same speed as all the other traffic. As soon as you try and go faster (overtaking) you put yourself and others in danger, and I wonder what makes you think you have the right to put others like me in danger.

I'm sure that we all agree the road toll is too high. But frankly, if all the people that died were idiots speeding, driving drunk, etc then I couldn't care less. What upsets me is all the innocent people that get killed when the idiots crash into them.

I have never had a ticket for anything, and if I ever get one then I will be completely to blame. The only situation I would argue is if I got picked out of a line of traffic all doing the same speed. If everyone else would slow down, then we would all be safer.

The faster you go, the bigger the mess.

hsvboy06

4th July 2006, 12:10

...the only inititiave [to reduce the road toll] that will EVER work is the improvements in Vehicle safety , airbags etc. As well as this improvements in the actual roads
No, all those things will do is make people feel safer and encourage them to go faster. It's a vicious circle. Remember that the open road speed limit used to be 80 km/h, and (I assume) improvements in vehicle safety (they didn't improve all the roads) led to that being increased to 100.
The only thing that will reduce the road toll is if everyone learns to drive/ride within the limits of their vehicle, the road, the conditions and their abilities.

emaN

4th July 2006, 12:16

I think the safest speed (especially on a bike) is the same speed as all the other traffic.

hmm,
tell that to city couriers!

don't agree at all,sorry hsvboy.
safest & most pro-active way I ride & travel is a wee bit quicker than cages. i can then choose where to place my vulnerable safe where i deem safest.

(i think one of the UK bike mags covered this a while back,and came to the above conclusion too)

Motu

4th July 2006, 12:18

Nice troll, surely someone like Contenential Cars would have a far lower fail rate due to economic positioning of their clientel compared to you!

Just another perspective on ''targets''.They have more problems with the AVI's at new car dealerships than the guys working in State Housing areas - they are used to just writting out a WoF without even checking the vehicle...goes for bikes too.When the LTNZ audits these places they have a field day because naturaly half the ''new'' vehicles have faults no one has picked up.

Lou Girardin

4th July 2006, 12:19

I find it amazing that so many people here say the cops are being too strict giving tickets for 112 km/h and the like. The speed limit is 100 and that is a MAXIMUM, not a target, so at 112 you're already 12% over the maximum.
I think the safest speed (especially on a bike) is the same speed as all the other traffic. As soon as you try and go faster (overtaking) you put yourself and others in danger, and I wonder what makes you think you have the right to put others like me in danger.

I'm sure that we all agree the road toll is too high. But frankly, if all the people that died were idiots speeding, driving drunk, etc then I couldn't care less. What upsets me is all the innocent people that get killed when the idiots crash into them.

The faster you go, the bigger the mess.

Well done, LTNZ will be proud, you've swallowed their line, hook and all.
There is no way that 12 k's over the limit puts anyone in danger. The clowns that kill themselves (and it usually is just themselves) are doing a lot faster than that. But 75% of all tickets are for 11 - 15 km/h over.
And riding at the same speed as every homicidal cager just enables them to be more likely to involve you in their stupidity.
Thanks, but I'll continue to speed and avoid those morons. It's worked for me for 38 years and I've never hurt anyone, or myself.

Quasievil

4th July 2006, 12:27

No, all those things will do is make people feel safer and encourage them to go faster. It's a vicious circle. Remember that the open road speed limit used to be 80 km/h, and (I assume) improvements in vehicle safety (they didn't improve all the roads) led to that being increased to 100.
The only thing that will reduce the road toll is if everyone learns to drive/ride within the limits of their vehicle, the road, the conditions and their abilities.

Yes that is a point, however making vehicles safer does increse the safety of its passengers, the are some who will drive faster harder or whatever because they think they are safer but that is a small percentage, not forgeting the cops are going to go away? Driver education and safer cars will certainly reduce the road toll more effectively than the police will do, there is no argument against this

Quasievil

4th July 2006, 12:29

Well done, LTNZ will be proud, you've swallowed their line, hook and all.
There is no way that 12 k's over the limit puts anyone in danger. The clowns that kill themselves (and it usually is just themselves) are doing a lot faster than that. But 75% of all tickets are for 11 - 15 km/h over.
And riding at the same speed as every homicidal cager just enables them to be more likely to involve you in their stupidity.
Thanks, but I'll continue to speed and avoid those morons. It's worked for me for 38 years and I've never hurt anyone, or myself.

The reason there is a margin is to allow for the variations in vehicles speed readings, tyre sizes etc etc etc .
cars are all different and the speedo is never accurate, even on a bike.
Thats why you think you were doing 110 but were doing 120 and so forth

scumdog

4th July 2006, 12:30

I say privatise the Traffic side of the Police - THEN you'll see some enforcement - tickets for 3km over etc, - nothing like REAL financial incentive to get a job done properly

Be straight down the line like the tax department, no 'warning' 'cos that would lose them money.

And then all the burglars and pedos would be caught no worries 'cos the Police could concentrate on them.

And KB would be well pleased with the rozzers.

hsvboy06

4th July 2006, 12:37

There is no way that 12 k's over the limit puts anyone in danger.
Perhaps, but what if they increased the limit to 120, then everyone would just go 130+. The fact is there needs to be a line drawn, and if everyone would abide by it (even if it is "too slow") then we'd all be better off.
Do you think it is ok for me to rob a bank if I only take a little bit of money? Afterall, it wouldn't really hurt anyone.

And riding at the same speed as every homicidal cager just enables them to be more likely to involve you in their stupidity.
Let's assume that in reality not every cage driver is homicidal (although we usually assume they are). If I travel 50km staying in the line of traffic, in theory I might only really "meet" 2 cages - 1 in front and 1 behind, both of which would be well aware of my presence. If I was to go faster, I could potentially "meet" 100 cages, all of which I'd be surprising, and riding through their blind spots. I think the chances of me meeting a real homicidal cager would be far higher. Personally I think I'll take my chances with the 2.

Swoop

4th July 2006, 12:40

The faster you go, the bigger the mess.

Good to see the message has got through to you... the brainwashing message.

Shit driving is the killer. And "kiwis" know how to drive very poorly.

If speeds in excess of 100kmh are deadly, then all motorsport MUST be banned immediately. Formula 1, Moto GP, V8 supercars? Are they insane!!!

Squeak the Rat

4th July 2006, 12:40

WoF inpectors work to a ''target'' too.LTNZ monitor our pass/fail rate - if you pass or fail too many they'll come and have a look at you - you need to pass some,and fail some,25% fail rate is good....I have a 50% fail rate....is that better?
Some one please tell me that licence testers also have to fail 25% of applicants. Sadly I think not.....

Squeak the Rat

4th July 2006, 12:45

Perhaps, but what if they increased the limit to 120, then everyone would just go 130+. The fact is there needs to be a line drawn, and if everyone would abide by it (even if it is "too slow") then we'd all be better off.
Do you think it is ok for me to rob a bank if I only take a little bit of money? Afterall, it wouldn't really hurt anyone.

When they raised the speed limit on the interstates in America it cut the road toll. How do you figure that in your logic?

It worked like this - they realised that fatalities were a result of a combination of factors. Not just speed. Two of the key ones were drivers mental state, and road condition. Answer, build good roads and get the driver there quicker, therefore encouraging them to use the good roads legally and in a safe (and happy) manner.

Speed is a factor sure, but only a factor and sometimes a minor one. Strictly enforcing an arbitrary speed limit is not the answer.

spudchucka

4th July 2006, 12:49

That is not the point. If enforcement is the silver bullet, it would be reducing accident rates overall. But we know it's not.
That's the embarrassment for your bosses.
It's a bit like the Yanks 'winning' in Vietnam by focussing on the body count, all the while they were losing the war.
So what is the answer?

I'm quite satisfied that if the cops weren't out there enforcing speed limits and other road rules the road tolls would be a hell of a lot worse than they are now.

However, the cops, govt & LTNZ are going to have to find something else to blame it on soon, rather than just speed, because the average driver HAS defineately slowed down a great deal over the last few years.

spudchucka

4th July 2006, 12:50

Of the Crimes Act?
Roger!!!!!!

Squeak the Rat

4th July 2006, 12:52

So what is the answer?

I'm quite satisfied that if the cops weren't out there enforcing speed limits and other road rules the road tolls would be a hell of a lot worse than they are now.

However, the cops, govt & LTNZ are going to have to find something else to blame it soon, on rather than just speed, because the average driver HAS defineately slowed down a great deal over the last few years.
There are many, that's the problem. But speed enforement happens to be the most cost effective so gets all the attention and funding.

hsvboy06

4th July 2006, 12:57

Good to see the message has got through to you... the brainwashing message.

Shit driving is the killer. And "kiwis" know how to drive very poorly.

If speeds in excess of 100kmh are deadly, then all motorsport MUST be banned immediately. Formula 1, Moto GP, V8 supercars? Are they insane!!!
Yes, the "brainwashing message" has got through to me. I believe it because it is true. You can't argue with the laws of physics. Would you rather fall off your bike at 50 or 100?

The "killer" is actually your inability to stop or control things when the unpredictable happens. Reaction time is a key ingredient. Speed in itself is not a problem if there is no reason to need to stop. In motorsport, all the cars are going the same way around the track, and all at about the same speed, and it's a lot less likely that a child will run across the track. (If you watched the Canadian F1 GP then you'd have seen Villeneuve crash simply because he came across a much slower moving Ralf Schumaker.) The cars can stop a lot faster than a road car, and the drivers' reaction times are much better than joe public's. In this situation, of course 100 km/h is not deadly, but there is a (much greater) speed that is, and that is why the FIA (in the case of F1) is continually trying to think of ways to slow the cars down.

spudchucka

4th July 2006, 12:59

Add to this, Police funding must be completely separated from Police revenue production.
All it needs to be is that the police state how much money they need to operate and achieve the desired outcomes, they negotiate with the govt, settle on a figure and go about their business without the interference of govt or other outside agencies. They get the money from the govt and are answerable to the minister but not directly controlled on a day to day basis by the govt, minister or any other agency that is for the time being holding the purse strings.

The current model has the police getting some $$$ from Govt, some from LTNZ, some from ACC, some from Local Authorities etc etc. Each outside agency that gives funding to the police expects to get their moneys worth, if the police don't deliver they don't get the funding the following year. Why do you think police bosses set targets for traffic enforcement? They have to supply returns to the agencies that fund them.

It is a fundamental problem in applying business principals to the day to day operation of a govt agency that is in effect a pseudo military organisation. In other words..... its a cluster fuck.

The_Dover

4th July 2006, 13:01

spudchucka

4th July 2006, 13:01

The only thing that will reduce the road toll is if everyone learns to drive/ride within the limits of their vehicle, the road, the conditions and their abilities.
Never a truer word has been spoken on this web site.

Squeak the Rat

4th July 2006, 13:07

Yes, the "brainwashing message" has got through to me. I believe it because it is true. You can't argue with the laws of physics. Would you rather fall off your bike at 50 or 100?

So we should lower the open road limit to 50?

hsvboy06

4th July 2006, 13:12

So do you ride like a complete girl then hsvbitch?

You trying to tell us you never break the speed limit cos it's so inherently dangerous to go over 100km/h??

I'd say whether you hit a solid object at 100km/h or 150km/h you're gonna be pretty fucked so may as well get it over with as quickly as possible.
Yes, I ride like a complete girl. Next question.

There's nothing magical about the number 100. I'd say it's inherently dangerous to ride faster than a safe speed for the conditions. That has to take into account the speed and presence of other traffic.

If you see a solid object then I'd say you've got a lot more chance of avoiding it (eg stopping) at 100 than you have at 150.

hsvboy06

4th July 2006, 13:15

So we should lower the open road limit to 50?
You know that's not what I was suggesting. Simply, if you have an accident, the faster you are going, the more it's going to hurt.

Swoop

4th July 2006, 13:23

The only thing that will reduce the road toll is if everyone learns to drive/ride within the limits of their vehicle, the road, the conditions and their abilities.
Correct - so long as people drive within their abilities for the conditions, there will be fewer accidents - the stated speed limit has nothing to do with this whatsoever.

There's nothing magical about the number 100. That has to take into account the speed and presence of other traffic.

If you see a solid object then I'd say you've got a lot more chance of avoiding it (eg stopping) at 100 than you have at 150.

Correct - so long as people drive within their abilities for the conditions, there will be fewer accidents - the stated speed limit has nothing to do with this whatsoever.

Swoop

4th July 2006, 13:30

Simply, if you have an accident, the faster you are going, the more it's going to hurt.
Not necessarily. There are many factors to be considered with the physics of a crash.

Avoiding the crash in the first place comes down to the individuals skills.
This is why you see some types of people riding in races, others who ride to a venue to watch others racing, and those who stay home and watch the race on tv.
Not everyone is able to perform at the "racers" level.
The wise person knows their skills and their limits. Once again the stated speed limit is not a factor. Some people need to only drive at 50kph while others are safer at a different speed.

hsvboy06

4th July 2006, 13:43

This is going to be my last post in this thread - I really do have work to do. It's been fun, though!

The wise person knows their skills and their limits. Once again the stated speed limit is not a factor.
Does the wise person know the skills and limits of every other person on the road? And every pedestrian that might walk into the road? You are at their mercy.
Finally, I honestly believe that speed differential is a key consideration, and therefore the posted speed limit is a factor because that is the speed at which most people (supposedly) are travelling.

Swoop

4th July 2006, 13:47

Does the wise person know the skills and limits of every other person on the road? And every pedestrian that might walk into the road? You are at their mercy.
This is why you keep your eyes peeled and look for hazards coming up, the faster you are going the further you need to be looking. Once again, ride/drive to your abilities.

eliot-ness

4th July 2006, 14:56

Like a few others on this forum I was lucky enough to ride in a period when the only speed limit, 50ks, was in built up areas. Outside these areas you were only limited by the size of your bike or your abilities. Do I feel safer now, traveling in endless lines of traffic, all doing the same speed? Not at all. I now have to concentrate, not only on what's happening up front, but also, to make sure I'm not the meat in the sandwich, keeping an eye on the guy behind and hoping he's doing the same thing. The only way to run traffic in close proximity is on rails, and, from today's news, even that has it's problems. It is no coincidence that the advent of speed cameras coincided with the introduction of draconian speed limits. Politicians saw the monetary value in speeding fines immediately and after a year of testing in urban areas blanket limits were imposed. Now, despite massive advances in vehicle safety, speeds that were considered safe seventy years ago are now, so we are informed, suicidal, and the cause of most road deaths. I don't consider myself to be a fast rider but when I come up to a log jam of traffic I get to the front as quickly as possible and find myself a clear space to ride in. It's a method that's kept me accident free for over fifty years and I'm not about to change on the whim of some politician. Incidentally, my last ticket was 1988, in a car. Last one on a bike, 1973, so I don't have a personal axe to grind.

Lou Girardin

4th July 2006, 15:38

So what is the answer?

I'm quite satisfied that if the cops weren't out there enforcing speed limits and other road rules the road tolls would be a hell of a lot worse than they are now.

However, the cops, govt & LTNZ are going to have to find something else to blame it on soon, rather than just speed, because the average driver HAS defineately slowed down a great deal over the last few years.

Well, the greatest drop in the road toll came over a period when the cops were being criticised for not doing enough traffic enforcement, 1990 - 1999.
Why don't you all go back to crime fighting for a year or 5 and we'll see what happens.
This is NZ, the sociological lab rats for the world.

Lou Girardin

4th July 2006, 15:39

It is a fundamental problem in applying business principals to the day to day operation of a govt agency that is in effect a pseudo military organisation. In other words..... its a cluster fuck.

Yep, but we're the ones getting it in the arse.

Lou Girardin

4th July 2006, 15:44

The only thing that will reduce the road toll is if everyone learns to drive/ride within the limits of their vehicle, the road, the conditions and their abilities.

That's what I do, it's worked so far. Speed limits don't factor into it for me.

Lou Girardin

4th July 2006, 15:46

Finally, I honestly believe that speed differential is a key consideration, and therefore the posted speed limit is a factor because that is the speed at which most people (supposedly) are travelling.

So you'll be lobbying for strict enforcement against those people travelling too slow?

James Deuce

4th July 2006, 15:55

Does the wise person know the skills and limits of every other person on the road? And every pedestrian that might walk into the road? You are at their mercy.

You're at their mercy anyway. All the time. It doesn't matter what vehicle you are in or on. You are at the mercy of everyone you share the road with.

Any speed over 20kph has the potential to be instantly fatal for a road user not protected by a metal cage given the "right" set of circumstances, therefore the only "safe" upper speed limit for cyclists and motorcyclists is 20kph.

If you really feel that way, stop riding bikes, because your personal philisophy doesn't support their use.

Finn

4th July 2006, 16:07

I'm quite satisfied that if the cops weren't out there enforcing speed limits and other road rules the road tolls would be a hell of a lot worse than they are now.

However, the cops, govt & LTNZ are going to have to find something else to blame it on soon, rather than just speed, because the average driver HAS defineately slowed down a great deal over the last few years.

What crock of shit Potatohead. Your two sentences contradict each other for a start.

I think you're another example of an institutionalised public servant who's starting to believe the shit they brainwash you with. MUST ISSUE MORE TICKETS, MUST ISSUE MORE TICKETS... The road toll is on the increase. The revenue campaign has failed. Everybody knows that, it's just a convenient way of gathering more tax.

Sweden and a couple of neighbouring countries are INCREASING speed limits due to the safety advances in cars. Yes, that's INCREASING, in some freeways it's up to 130kph.

Fuck I'm sick of narrow minded, neanderthal, island thinking.

The_Dover

4th July 2006, 16:11

Fuck I'm sick of narrow minded, neanderthal, island thinking.

Baaaa baaaaa.:buggerd:

Swoop

4th July 2006, 16:47

I wonder why Australia (Qld) has speed limits of 110kph on the freeways and 60kph in residential areas???

Haven't they heard that speed kills?:wait:

spudchucka

4th July 2006, 16:55

Well, the greatest drop in the road toll came over a period when the cops were being criticised for not doing enough traffic enforcement, 1990 - 1999.
Why don't you all go back to crime fighting for a year or 5 and we'll see what happens.
This is NZ, the sociological lab rats for the world.
The only reason the cops didn't enforce traffic in the early 90's is because of the merger, nobody wanted to be a snake and the snakes that were forced to become cops largely didn't like what they were doing either. I wasn't a cop during this time but from what I've been told, this is what it was like. Igor is an old timer, I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong.

It wouldn't worry me at all if the cops decided to take a break from road policing for 5 years, it would, as you say, be interesting to see what happens over that time and the measures that would be put in place to clean up the mess that would result.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=6780&page=6

Post 82 shows a graph indicating road deaths between 1990 - 2004, after a spike in 1991 the trend has been downwards, (92, 93, 94). The graph also says that targeted enforcement, compulsary breath testing and speed cameras were introduced during the same period.

So were the cops really doing nothing in the 90's or were they putting things in place that have impacted on the road toll? Perhaps 400 - 450 road deaths a year is the best we can ever expect and its a waste of resources to try to reduce it any further? But should we stop doing what we are doing just because the likelyhood of improving on the status quo is minimal? I don't see it that way.

spudchucka

4th July 2006, 17:00

I think you're another example of an institutionalised public servant who's starting to believe the shit they brainwash you with.
Finn, please be quite clear in understanding that I absolutely could not care in the slightest what you think.

spudchucka

4th July 2006, 17:02

Yep, but we're the ones getting it in the arse.
And you're the ones that can change it. Anyway, according to you at least, you haven't had to take it up the arse for quite some time.

Lou Girardin

4th July 2006, 17:24

Post 82 shows a graph indicating road deaths between 1990 - 2004, after a spike in 1991 the trend has been downwards, (92, 93, 94). The graph also says that targeted enforcement, compulsary breath testing and speed cameras were introduced during the same period.
.

At the end of the period. So there you have it, the road toll fell when you guys did nothing.
How about doing nothing again?
At least you'll be supporting Darwin.

Skytwr

4th July 2006, 17:29

While some of the threads are about speed limits, Australia is lowering some of these in residential areas from 60 to 50 and even 40.

Due to the increase of people living in the countryside here and moving out of the city to there small farms. The councils are lowering speeds as they plan for more trucks doing the earth moving for the sub divisons and the expected arrival of the new residence.

Expect a lot more rural roads to have lower limits from now on.

One reason for the 100k limit is we do not have the same well built roads that they are able to build overseas. On and off ramps that are too short to get up to the correct speed etc.

spudchucka

4th July 2006, 17:32

How about doing nothing again?
I'd be happy to oblige, but it aint up to me.

terbang

4th July 2006, 17:45

Finn, please be quite clear in understanding that I absolutely could not care in the slightest what you think.

How long before the pensions due there Spud..?

Finn

4th July 2006, 18:08

Finn, please be quite clear in understanding that I absolutely could not care in the slightest what you think.

Yes, you've mentioned that before and yet I still feel compelled to make you look like an idiot for posting such a pathetic statement. Fact: the police are having very little effect on the road toll. Targetting speeding is not working and has never worked in any other country.

On a positive note, your new boss is really cute. She's bursting with experience and I'm sure she'll be able to regain the lack of public confidence in the police.

Now go polish those booties and make me proud.

Mr. Peanut

4th July 2006, 18:12

The mandatory end-of-thread bitch fight. :yes:

Good work fellas... :motu:

Finn

4th July 2006, 18:18

The mandatory end-of-thread bitch fight. :yes:

Good work fellas... :motu:

It's not a bitch fight Peanus, it's a well rounded debate. Currently, I'm ahead by a long shot. I mean who's gonna side with someone who gives out tickets to people for doing 10 k's over the limit?

Over to you Spud...

terbang

4th July 2006, 18:23

Cmon Finn, be civil now, its Mr Peanus..

Scouse

4th July 2006, 20:00

Cmon Finn, be civil now, its Mr Peanus..You mean Mr Peanus with added Nob Cheese

spudchucka

4th July 2006, 20:34

It's not a bitch fight Peanus, it's a well rounded debate. Currently, I'm ahead by a long shot. I mean who's gonna side with someone who gives out tickets to people for doing 10 k's over the limit?

Over to you Spud...
Inflate your ego all you want, I aint interested.

scumdog

5th July 2006, 01:15

Everybody knows that, it's just a convenient way of gathering more tax.

Sweden and a couple of neighbouring countries are INCREASING speed limits due to the safety advances in cars. Yes, that's INCREASING, in some freeways it's up to 130kph.

Fuck I'm sick of narrow minded, neanderthal, island thinking.

(1) You'll be disappointed to know it is about 20 years since I contibuted to said 'tax'

(2)And how do the roads in Sweden compare to ours?
And how tough is their licencing system?
And how much has their population and car numbers increased in the last 15 years?.

Ya got to compare apples with apples ya know.

scumdog

5th July 2006, 01:23

Jantar

5th July 2006, 01:27

(2)And how do the roads in Sweden compare to ours?
And how tough is their licencing system?
And how much has their population and car numbers increased in the last 15 years?.

Ya got to compare apples with apples ya know.

I can answer some of these questions. My youngest son has been in Sweden for almost a year now, and I have asked him these very things. He is working in the Michelin Tyre factory as a loader. A great job for someone qualified as a commercial pilot.

The roads are comparable to ours, except evryone drives on the wrong side of the road. During winter the roads are very icy and often snow bound, but vehicles are fitted with snow tyres.

To get a Swedish drivers licence he just showed his New Zealand Learner's motorbike licence, and was presented with a full Swedish drivers licence for cars and bikes. He did say that the cost of getting a licence is very high.

James Deuce

5th July 2006, 06:42

Lou Girardin

5th July 2006, 08:14

(1) You'll be disappointed to know it is about 20 years since I contibuted to said 'tax'

(2)And how do the roads in Sweden compare to ours?
And how tough is their licencing system?
And how much has their population and car numbers increased in the last 15 years?.

Ya got to compare apples with apples ya know.

ALL of Europe has tougher licencing regimes than here. Much more expensive as well, the most feared penalty in Italy is having to resit your licence.
The roads I saw were comparable with NZ, except that Autostradas are 3 lanes. Trucks only move out of the right lane to overtake ONE slower vehicle at a time, cars travelling at 110 - 120 stay in the middle lane, faster stuff has the left lane to themselves. There is a distinct lack of lane markings in cities, but the drivers know what they're doing and, more importantly, what others are doing. They stop for red lights! It was more relaxing being cabbed around the centre of Milan than anywhere in Auckland.

Finn

5th July 2006, 08:41

(1) You'll be disappointed to know it is about 20 years since I contibuted to said 'tax'

(2)And how do the roads in Sweden compare to ours?
And how tough is their licencing system?
And how much has their population and car numbers increased in the last 15 years?.

Ya got to compare apples with apples ya know.

1) I don't blame the cops (just Spudchucker) it's the Government that has created this revenue exercise.

2) My point exactly. The roads in Sweden are much better, the drivers have brains and they don't drive the same distance per annum that we do. So... instead of spending $90 billion a year on Social Welfare and wasting money on other hair brained ideas, why don't we put some of this money into roading & education if they are so concerned about 500 deaths. Meanwhile 1000's of people are being murdered by our healthcare system and you don't see doctors & nurses getting fined.

Indoo

5th July 2006, 08:46

Fact: the police are having very little effect on the road toll. Targetting speeding is not working and has never worked in any other country.

Where exactly do you get that 'fact' from?

I'm certainly not saying this is the right way, but by reducing average speeds logic would dicate that crashes become more avoidable and the outcome of those crashes becomes far more survivable. If you look at the figures they bear that out. How many fatal crashes would we have if the speed limit was lowered to 50kmh on the open road and anyone exceeding it by 1kmh was instantly arrested (aside from the amount of people that would do runners).

The argument is whether or not that is the best way to do things, a blind enforcement regime that judges everyone by the lowest denominator and targets quantity not quality of enforcement. Or removing the LTSA/Gov/Acc influence that has created all these business models of performance measures and accountability for contracted hours. That actually encourages traffic cops and speed cameras to police, not where the speed is dangerous but ironcially where it is safer as they will be more likely to meet said targets.

Finn

5th July 2006, 08:51

You can't use Scandanavian countries to compare NZ. It's usually done because of the social welfare systems that these countries have in effect, but our isn't anywhere near as good anymore. All the Scandanavian countries have industries that make our GDP per capita look very ugly indeed.

I've posted the figures before, but NZ has more sealed roads than any Scandinavian country per head of capita, and they are often much better roads. The Swedish rally invasion came about because Sweden used to have an extensive network of gravel roads as main highways, let alone secondary roads.

Norway has a very impressive rail infrastructure, and giant ferries that steam up and down the North Sea Coast and across the Baltic year round. Lou has already mentioned Italy's speed limit. It used to be 120 - they raised it to 130 and the accident rate went down, but as Lou said the policing of the more exuberent driving was more strictly enforced. Norway are not a country of drivers or riders. It is odd to find an enthusiast from that country, where Sweden is the opposite. Norway has a system of graduated speed limits that my wife found quite maddening when she was there, mostly because the open road speed limit is 80km/hr. Around the fjords this makes sense as the roads are terrible. Makes motorways a pain.

Huh? Are you reading a 1964 Readers Digest? You have to go a LONG way up north to hit gravel roads. In fact I can only remember once being on a gravel road up north of Sweden and that was someones driveway. They've also got proper winters and ice to contend with too.

The leftest regime is crumbling in Sweden. Like most cancers, Socialism has it's day. Big business is moving off shore or selling. Their education system & health systems are failing badly. Their social & racial problems are huge because they opened the flood gates to dead beats. I'm sure this all sounds familiar.

James Deuce

5th July 2006, 09:08

Huh? Are you reading a 1964 Readers Digest? You have to go a LONG way up north to hit gravel roads. In fact I can only remember once being on a gravel road up north of Sweden and that was someones driveway. They've also got proper winters and ice to contend with too.

I was talking from a historical perspective, you shiney domed, festering heap of effluvium.

Sometimes I like to think that other people don;t need to have EVERYTHING explained to them.

My mistake.

spudchucka

5th July 2006, 09:09

1) I don't blame the cops (just Spudchucker) it's the Government that has created this revenue exercise.
Cool, I've got another fan.

spudchucka

5th July 2006, 09:13

I was talking from a historical perspective, you shiney domed, festering heap of effluvium.
Its been a few years since I saw you come out with a classic like that.

Quasievil

5th July 2006, 09:16

I was talking from a historical perspective, you shiney domed, festering heap of effluvium.

Sometimes I like to think that other people don;t need to have EVERYTHING explained to them.

My mistake.

Bwaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Nice Jim2, but take it easy on us follockly challenged fellas mate

James Deuce

5th July 2006, 09:20

No worries, I reflect quite a bit of light myself.

Finn

5th July 2006, 09:40

My mistake.

Appology accepted.

The_Dover

5th July 2006, 09:40

Finn's not bald.

He's "aerodynamic" to make up for the power deficiency in his blade.

Finn

5th July 2006, 09:50

Cool, I've got another fan.

Yeah, in a Mark Chapman kinda way...

Police Complaints Authority
Address Level 10
Baldwins Centre
342 Lambton Quay
Wellington

Postal PO Box 5025
Wellington
Telephone +64 4 499 2050 or 0800 503 728
Fax +64 4 499 2053
Hours 8.30am -5pm Mondays to Fridays

spudchucka

5th July 2006, 10:58

You wouldn't be the first and you certainly won't be the last.

You gonna shoot me like Lennon or just complain like a bitch?

Finn

5th July 2006, 11:25

You wouldn't be the first and you certainly won't be the last.

You gonna shoot me like Lennon or just complain like a bitch?

I'm actually going to give you a job in Business Development based on your track record;

1) Work long hours for nothing
2) Consistently exceeding sales targets
3) Ability to collect revenue from customers that don't really want your product
4) Snappy dresser
5) You're resourceful when lacking adequate budget & management
6) Use of brute force - Accounts Receivable

We can work on your abuse of company vehicles.

ldnz

5th July 2006, 11:34

Haha brilliant Finn

Lou Girardin

5th July 2006, 12:51

The argument is whether or not that is the best way to do things, a blind enforcement regime that judges everyone by the lowest denominator and targets quantity not quality of enforcement. Or removing the LTSA/Gov/Acc influence that has created all these business models of performance measures and accountability for contracted hours. That actually encourages traffic cops and speed cameras to police, not where the speed is dangerous but ironcially where it is safer as they will be more likely to meet said targets.

This is a bit subversive for you. What happened? Have you had a bad performance review?
BTW. I agree.

Pixie

5th July 2006, 13:03

Why not ask some of the cops on this forum, (who repeatedly offer honest evaluations of current policing issues), how often, in their experience, a simple traffic stop turns into something much bigger instead of just dismissing it as bullshit? I've locked up heaps of burglars and drug dealers as a result of a basic traffic stop and having a nose for sniffing dodgy buggers. Pretty much ever cop in the country would have a story to tell about a simple turnover that resulted in a really good lock up.
So if you weren't doing traffic stops you'd just sit on your arse?

Pixie

5th July 2006, 13:17

No, all those things will do is make people feel safer and encourage them to go faster. It's a vicious circle. Remember that the open road speed limit used to be 80 km/h, and (I assume) improvements in vehicle safety (they didn't improve all the roads) led to that being increased to 100.
The only thing that will reduce the road toll is if everyone learns to drive/ride within the limits of their vehicle, the road, the conditions and their abilities.
The speed limit dropped to 80 to save fuel.At the time a cop (MOT) would lecture you on how doing 120 was suicide.Then the limit was raised to 100 and overnight 120 was safe enough to not draw a cop's attention.

Pixie

5th July 2006, 13:32

Sweden and a couple of neighbouring countries are INCREASING speed limits due to the safety advances in cars. Yes, that's INCREASING, in some freeways it's up to 130kph.

They must have kicked out the fanatic bureaucrat that's responsible for the draconian speed enforcement in Victoria,NZ and parts of UK...the guy that came up with these policies is a swede,a former speeder,now a born again slow driver

Finn

5th July 2006, 13:38

They must have kicked out the fanatic bureaucrat that's responsible for the draconian speed enforcement in Victoria,NZ and parts of UK...the guy that came up with these policies is a swede,a former speeder,now a born again slow driver

Kicked out? Remember what happened to Olof Palme?

Pixie

5th July 2006, 13:38

(2)And how do the roads in Sweden compare to ours?
And how tough is their licencing system?

Ya got to compare apples with apples ya know.
Ok so NZ should:
1. make better roads
2. make it harder to get a licence

...to get the road toll down

Lou Girardin

5th July 2006, 13:40

Kicked out? Remember what happened to Olof Palme?

Shame that. Left Mrs Palm a widow, with 5 daughters too.

The_Dover

5th July 2006, 13:43

Lucky Helen is too fugly to breed and is married to an alleged homosexual.

No orphans in this assasination...

Finn

5th July 2006, 13:47

Lucky Helen is too fugly to breed and is married to an alleged homosexual.

No orphans in this assasination...

Actually, Hulen Cluck would have over a million orphans. The beneficiaries that voted for her.

SPman

5th July 2006, 14:52

The speed limit dropped to 80 to save fuel.At the time a cop (MOT) would lecture you on how doing 120 was suicide.I never got lectured - they just laughed when I said I always rode around that speed or more and would tell me to "please slow down a bit" - as they wrote out the ticket!

Swoop

5th July 2006, 16:25

Actually, Hulen Cluck would have over a million orphans. The beneficiaries that voted for her.
Heilen Klunc.
South Orcland did her proud.

spudchucka

5th July 2006, 16:37

I'm actually going to give you a job in Business Development based on your track record;

1) Work long hours for nothing
2) Consistently exceeding sales targets
3) Ability to collect revenue from customers that don't really want your product
4) Snappy dresser
5) You're resourceful when lacking adequate budget & management
6) Use of brute force - Accounts Receivable

We can work on your abuse of company vehicles.
7) Can recognise a blow hard when he sees one.

spudchucka

5th July 2006, 16:50

So if you weren't doing traffic stops you'd just sit on your arse?
Pixie, you are so bitter and anal that I know I'm wasting my words on you but let me tell you when I do traffic work..... I stop vehicles when I see them involved in a traffic offence that warrants speaking to the driver or writing an infringement notice. This usually occurrs in between going from one GDB job to the next one or between the job and returning to the station to complete the pile of paper work required for each matter I deal with.

The only time I ever actively target traffic offences is when I'm 100% up to date on my GDB stuff. This is almost always over my swing shift weekend and over my seven nights of night shift. So out of a five week period I will usually target traffic offenders for one Friday & one Saturday night from 1700 - 0300 hours and for one full week out of the five, while on night shift, I will do about two hours of traffic work each night.

The majority of the tickets that I write over these periods go to mindless twits in boyracer shit mobiles, disqualified drivers and drunk drivers. I write very few speeding tickets and the ones that I do write are in the main for pretty decent speeds that plenty of folk on here have said, "he fucken deserved it" in other threads relating to speeding tickets.

As I've said before, traffic stops are a great tool for police to utilise against the criminal elements. If you genuinely think that we just sit on our arses when not turning over cars then I'm wasting my time communicating with you. Think what you want, I'll just add you to the long list of KB folk who I simply don't give a flying fuck about.

Finn

5th July 2006, 16:53

This usually occurrs in between going from one GDBjob to the next

General Duties Blow Job? You really are a company man.

Finn

5th July 2006, 17:02

7) Can recognise a blow hard when he sees one.

We don't discriminate. We'll do business with anyone.

spudchucka

5th July 2006, 17:23

:yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn:

WINJA

5th July 2006, 17:24

how bout catching burglers b4 they become speeders , it makes more sense than catching speeders to see if their burglers.
and if you get caught burgling a house it should be an instant 28 days loss of licence , infact by not taking the licence off a repeat offender the jstice system is actually helping them to commit more theft , fuck the pigs are dumb arses

scumdog

5th July 2006, 17:37

scumdog

5th July 2006, 17:41

The speed limit dropped to 80 to save fuel.At the time a cop (MOT) would lecture you on how doing 120 was suicide.Then the limit was raised to 100 and overnight 120 was safe enough to not draw a cop's attention.

And when it went to 100 the Govt bombarded us with messages how it wold be strictly enforced, that there would be zero tolerance etc etc

Boy, how easily we forget..

Quasievil

5th July 2006, 17:50

The majority of the tickets that I write over these periods go to mindless twits in boyracer shit mobiles, disqualified drivers and drunk drivers.

On the occasions when ive gone out with me mate out of Huntly I was gobsmacked about how many times we stopped cars with disqualified drivers, drunk drivers, we even regulary stopped a few people who where smoking drugs. I was quite amazed really infact I would say 1 in 5 had serious offences as above available to sought out, and probably 2 in 5 had something, ie registration, warrant, bald tyres or something going on.SOme had the full works no reg warrant of their faces and no licence, how would you like to have your family driving along with that sought of looser coming at them at 120kmph?
I only went out at night till late. certainly made me think about my fellow drivers when driving at night.
Fuck in the few months I went out made a lasting impression to me that I wouldnt do it for a job, as much as I hate ticketing (posted that already) you got to show alot of respect to the cops for the shite they have to contend with.
Big ups to the cops on KB !!! (I will be speeding through the country soon Registration QUASI no tickets ok)

The_Dover

5th July 2006, 17:52

Boy, how easily we forget..

Don't worry scummy old pal, at your age that's expected.

Grahameeboy

5th July 2006, 17:59

Don't worry scummy old pal, at your age that's expected.

guess you started young then................what is its called...congenital!!!!!

Lou Girardin

6th July 2006, 08:32

On the occasions when ive gone out with me mate out of Huntly I was gobsmacked about how many times we stopped cars with disqualified drivers, drunk drivers, we even regulary stopped a few people who where smoking drugs. I was quite amazed really infact I would say 1 in 5 had serious offences as above available to sought out, and probably 2 in 5 had something, ie registration, warrant, bald tyres or something going on.SOme had the full works no reg warrant of their faces and no licence

So, why do they put most of their traffic resources into dayshift enforcement. You know, targeting the people who pay their fines.

The_Dover

6th July 2006, 08:37

Geeze Quasi,

I'm glad you never stopped me on the Awakino pub run.

I was high on P, shitfaced drunk, my bike had no warrant or rego and my rear tyre was bald at the edges.

I just didn't have my bong helmet on cos I knew the smoke would freeze inside my visor and the coughing could have caused problems in the cold temps.

Finn was also off his crack smoking head on methadone suppositories.

spudchucka

6th July 2006, 09:34

So, why do they put most of their traffic resources into dayshift enforcement. You know, targeting the people who pay their fines.
Highway patrol and STU tend to be deployed on day shifts and late shifts to 2300, sometimes 0300. The day time is when the traffic volumes are highest and they can; a) have the greatest impact on modifying driver behaviour; b) write the most tickets in order to be the best rated group in their area; c) collect the most revenue for the beloved socialist.

The correct answer depneds on how cynical the individual is. No Lou, YOU don't need to submit your choice.

Lou Girardin

6th July 2006, 09:44

Highway patrol and STU tend to be deployed on day shifts and late shifts to 2300, sometimes 0300. The day time is when the traffic volumes are highest and they can; a) have the greatest impact on modifying driver behaviour; b) write the most tickets in order to be the best rated group in their area; c) collect the most revenue for the beloved socialist.

The correct answer depneds on how cynical the individual is. No Lou, YOU don't need to submit your choice.

Cynicism is the healthiest mental state. You're never disappointed or depressed.
Buggered if I know how optimists get through life. Just one bitter disappointment after another.