PDA

View Full Version : Police are planning...



madandy
2nd June 2004, 06:22
to issue 75,000 more speeding tickets in the next 12 months compared to the last 12!
"...there is no quota... and there is a clear link between enforcing speed limits and reducing road deaths...reduce annual deaths from 400 to 300 by 2010..."
Even though there'll be approximately another half million cars on the road by 2010 :doh:

Lou Girardin
2nd June 2004, 06:33
If Police policies are working and average speeds are being forced down. Where are all those tickets going to come from?
Then there's the projection of another million or so dollars income for the Government just as they're setting the Police budget.
A truly fine performance, Goebbels would be proud.

bgd
2nd June 2004, 07:34
But does rtargeting speed reduce the road toll. Doesn't seem to be working over here and it hasn't worked in NZ, last year at least.

The latest talk here (apart from the camera with a 2km range) is a camera that detects tailgating. Don't know how it works but to me that is something sensible. It seems to me if you target the bad / dangerous drivers then you might have some impact on the road toll.

But what do I know.

spudchucka
2nd June 2004, 09:53
But does rtargeting speed reduce the road toll. Doesn't seem to be working over here and it hasn't worked in NZ, last year at least.

The latest talk here (apart from the camera with a 2km range) is a camera that detects tailgating. Don't know how it works but to me that is something sensible. It seems to me if you target the bad / dangerous drivers then you might have some impact on the road toll.

But what do I know.
Of course targeting speed has an impact on the road toll. Speed has everything to do with the damage caused as a result of a crash. Whether or not it caused the crash in the first place is debatable. However it is an undeniable fact that speed is directly linked to net damage done, its just basic physics FFS. Any one that flatly denies this has got his / her head up their own arse.

I totally agree that the "manner" of driving should be policed as hard or harder than speed. However the Courts have to back the police up and hand down some stiff sentences. Often people walk away from Court with a lesser penalty than what they get if an instant fine were to be issued.

If police all of a sudden decided not to target speed anymore you would see a dramatic jump in the road toll. I'm not a supporter of rigid, zero tollerance to speed offending and think that it should be more subject to the discretion of the officer but I would rather have zero tolerance than no speed enforcement at all.

Sadly there is an abundance of drivers that are prepared to drive like maniacs and endanger other road users. As long as there are people willing to drive like this there will be rigid enforcement. Hopefully in turn that has an impact on the road toll. I have no doubt the toll would be through the roof if there wasn't police out there stopping people and issuing tickets.

The road toll would be 0 if people would just drive with their eyes open, obey the road rules, keep their vehicles in good order and stay on their own bloody side of the road.

spudchucka
2nd June 2004, 09:57
If Police policies are working and average speeds are being forced down. Where are all those tickets going to come from?
I fair question. I'd like to know the answer to that one as well.


A truly fine performance, Goebbels would be proud.
Lou is this just your attempt at humor or do you really believe NZ resembles Nazi Germany?

MikeL
2nd June 2004, 10:09
Of course targeting speed has an impact on the road toll. Speed has everything to do with the damage caused as a result of a crash. Whether or not it caused the crash in the first place is debatable. However it is an undeniable fact that speed is directly linked to net damage done, its just basic physics FFS. Any one that flatly denies this has got his / her head up their own arse.

I totally agree that the "manner" of driving should be policed as hard or harder than speed. However the Courts have to back the police up and hand down some stiff sentences. Often people walk away from Court with a lesser penalty than what they get if an instant fine were to be issued.

If police all of a sudden decided not to target speed anymore you would see a dramatic jump in the road toll. I'm not a supporter of rigid, zero tollerance to speed offending and think that it should be more subject to the discretion of the officer but I would rather have zero tolerance than no speed enforcement at all.

Sadly there is an abundance of drivers that are prepared to drive like maniacs and endanger other road users. As long as there are people willing to drive like this there will be rigid enforcement. Hopefully in turn that has an impact on the road toll. I have no doubt the toll would be through the roof if there wasn't police out there stopping people and issuing tickets.

The road toll would be 0 if people would just drive with their eyes open, obey the road rules, keep their vehicles in good order and stay on their own bloody side of the road.

I agree with everything you have written here, Spud. Where I have questioned enforcement policies in the past, it has been on the basis of what is a fair, reasonable and appropriate use of resources, and what priorities should be, and what the public perception of police is and should be. No-one disputes the need for enforcement of speed limits, but questions about discretion and tolerance, and the on-going debate about the part revenue-gathering plays in the whole equation, are still both contentious and relevant.
At least we have some common ground, unlike certain other arguments...

spudchucka
2nd June 2004, 10:30
I agree with everything you have written here, Spud. Where I have questioned enforcement policies in the past, it has been on the basis of what is a fair, reasonable and appropriate use of resources, and what priorities should be, and what the public perception of police is and should be. No-one disputes the need for enforcement of speed limits, but questions about discretion and tolerance, and the on-going debate about the part revenue-gathering plays in the whole equation, are still both contentious and relevant.
At least we have some common ground, unlike certain other arguments...
The revenue gathering stigma will always be attached to police as long as they conduct traffic enforcement. As one who is passionate about the police and what they do I get pretty fecked off at times with this shit, (traffic fines etc) because it does have an impact on public immpressions. I hate hearing stories about unreasonable cops hammering Joe public but at the same time I have to accept that enforcing traffic regulations is part of the job. I always try to be fair & reasonable but I've got no problem with hammering dangerous idiots and people who just blatantly break the rules, however there is no way I'll ever write up somebody just because I can.

riffer
2nd June 2004, 11:06
The revenue gathering stigma will always be attached to police as long as they conduct traffic enforcement. As one who is passionate about the police and what they do I get pretty fecked off at times with this shit, (traffic fines etc) because it does have an impact on public immpressions. I hate hearing stories about unreasonable cops hammering Joe public but at the same time I have to accept that enforcing traffic regulations is part of the job. I always try to be fair & reasonable but I've got no problem with hammering dangerous idiots and people who just blatantly break the rules, however there is no way I'll ever write up somebody just because I can.
Have to agree with you Spud, even though I've grumbled about my tickets. At the end of the day I went too fast and copped the fine and the demerits.

Ultimately the best revenge for those of us who complain is to not give the police the opportunity to get their extra tickets. Find a better place to speed or find a way to get your jollies without exceeding the speed limit. I'm finding I can have more fun finding windy roads than seeing what my bikes top speed is.

The sooner the politicians believe they've solved the road toll problem the sooner the police can move on to solving the more important problems in our society.

Quasievil
2nd June 2004, 11:19
The revenue gathering stigma will always be attached to police as long as they conduct traffic enforcement. As one who is passionate about the police and what they do I get pretty fecked off at times with this shit, (traffic fines etc) because it does have an impact on public immpressions. I hate hearing stories about unreasonable cops hammering Joe public but at the same time I have to accept that enforcing traffic regulations is part of the job. I always try to be fair & reasonable but I've got no problem with hammering dangerous idiots and people who just blatantly break the rules, however there is no way I'll ever write up somebody just because I can.

Of course its revenue gathering, if not why do they ping you for cash when doing a little over the speed limit, I got done for 114kp/h going down a hill a good conditions, they made me pay $80.00 and took 20 points, DID THEY HAVE TO TAKE CASH?? 20 points is plenty punishment enough for a slight road rule breach.its ALL about the money, If they were serious about speed being a MAJOR problem as they would have you believe they could do all soughts of things ie speed restrict cars that come into the country.
As long as there is money in it they will milk it for everything.
The highway patrol are scum they chose thier job cause they enjoy writing tickets like the power hungry control freaks they are, all reason is gone and its MONEY MONEY MONEY.I haven met a HP that hasnt got some mental issues going on yet
Having spent alot of time in highway patrol cars myself I think im fairly qualified to say. :shake:

spudchucka
2nd June 2004, 11:35
Of course its revenue gathering, if not why do they ping you for cash when doing a little over the speed limit, I got done for 114kp/h going down a hill a good conditions, they made me pay $80.00 and took 20 points, DID THEY HAVE TO TAKE CASH?? 20 points is plenty punishment enough for a slight road rule breach.its ALL about the money, If they were serious about speed being a MAJOR problem as they would have you believe they could do all soughts of things ie speed restrict cars that come into the country.
As long as there is money in it they will milk it for everything.
The highway patrol are scum they chose thier job cause they enjoy writing tickets like the power hungry control freaks they are, all reason is gone and its MONEY MONEY MONEY.I haven met a HP that hasnt got some mental issues going on yet
Having spent alot of time in highway patrol cars myself I think im fairly qualified to say. :shake:
Please explain why you have endangered your well being by spending so much time in a Highway Patrol vehicle which is being piloted by a mentally deranged traffic cop out to take all your money?? Your logic does not compute and I am wondering what mental issues you are harbouring.

Are you suggesting that you would be happy for the Govt to place speed restrictors on all vehicles in this country.

MikeL
2nd June 2004, 11:44
Having spent alot of time in highway patrol cars myself I think im fairly qualified to say. :shake:

It depends what you were doing in those HP cars. If you mean that you were a HP cop yourself once then I suppose you have a point, although it's strange that you don't make an exception for yourself.
On the other hand if you were sitting in the car waiting for the cop to write out a ticket your jaundiced view would be understandable, even though your statement is wildly exaggerated.
The only other reason for having spent some time in patrol cars that I can think of would be as an observer for some project or research and I find it hard to believe that you spent so much time with so many different cops as to be able to justify your sweeping generalisation.
FWIW the worst behaviour I have met with from a traffic cop was a slightly impatient and somewhat arrogant retort to the effect that I shouldn't try to tell him how to do his job, when I was (politely) trying to explain something to him. Scarcely enough to justify the description "scum".

DEATH_INC.
2nd June 2004, 12:11
yep,if it aint revenue collecting why fines and not just points?and what's with those stupid speed cameras?and why aren't they placed in those signposted 'black spots' where they might do some good?
We all know this is a load of rubbish,but we have to put up with it,right?
I'm in the 'high risk' group,I tend to ride/drive fast,but other than a couple of bike crashes where people have pulled in front of me,my accident rate is not too bad,and zero in a cage.I should be dead.....
There are much bigger issues with our drivers/roading network but the two things they pick on are speeding and d.i.c.,as both are easy to prove (black and white,you're over or under...)as they don't rely on the officers judgment,so no arguments.Easy money.....

spudchucka
2nd June 2004, 12:26
yep,if it aint revenue collecting why fines and not just points?and what's with those stupid speed cameras?and why aren't they placed in those signposted 'black spots' where they might do some good?
We all know this is a load of rubbish,but we have to put up with it,right?
I'm in the 'high risk' group,I tend to ride/drive fast,but other than a couple of bike crashes where people have pulled in front of me,my accident rate is not too bad,and zero in a cage.I should be dead.....
There are much bigger issues with our drivers/roading network but the two things they pick on are speeding and d.i.c.,as both are easy to prove (black and white,you're over or under...)as they don't rely on the officers judgment,so no arguments.Easy money.....
Drunk Driving has to be proven in court and relies on properly calibrated testing equipment and or laboratory analysis of the drivers blood. There are strict procedures that must be followed or the case will be thrown out. Its not just up to the officers judgement, (gee you look a bit pissed, think I'll charge you with drink driving). Speeding is targeted because it is an injury promoting factor in traffic crashes. The equipment has to be calibrated and the operators certified to use the equipment.

You say why not just points? Ok then lets make the points system much harsher so that drivers lose their licences much easier and for longer periods. Would that make you happy?

The camera black spots are a joke because people just slow down for a short period of time and then continue to break the speed limit.

Perhaps the people that pulled out in front of you weren't able to judge the distance between themselves and you because you were travelling well above the speed limit.

Quasievil
2nd June 2004, 12:28
Please explain why you have endangered your well being by spending so much time in a Highway Patrol vehicle which is being piloted by a mentally deranged traffic cop out to take all your money?? Your logic does not compute and I am wondering what mental issues you are harbouring.

Are you suggesting that you would be happy for the Govt to place speed restrictors on all vehicles in this country.

No Problem, A old freind of mine got me into helping the police out on night shift at the Ngruawhahia station, at the time they patroled State 1 , I would go out as a volunteer two or three nights a week ,as the cops had to have two cars but only one cop in each, they liked having volunteers to help out.
I relaised after a high speed chase from Huntly to Meremere were a VTR1000 was trying to get away at around 200kp/h (a speed we matched after the chase was called of ,that this is ridiculous and is not a safe thing to do, so I stopped helping out. This event also strengthed my opinion about the mental state of those cops involved. The VTR was doing 94 km/h in a 70km/h sure he made a run for it, but the cops were intent on getting him desipte the risk to themselves the public and the biker. The chase was called off but they turned the lights of and continued. have you been in a cop car doing 200km/h they dont corner to well.
so after this and other events I hold my qualified opinion :Pokey:

No Imnot advocating the use of speed restrictors at all, but the point was that if the government and its police cronies were serious they would advocate and instigate legislation to make them mandatory

scroter
2nd June 2004, 12:37
Of course its revenue gathering, if not why do they ping you for cash when doing a little over the speed limit, I got done for 114kp/h going down a hill a good conditions, they made me pay $80.00 and took 20 points, DID THEY HAVE TO TAKE CASH?? 20 points is plenty punishment enough for a slight road rule breach.its ALL about the money, If they were serious about speed being a MAJOR problem as they would have you believe they could do all soughts of things ie speed restrict cars that come into the country.
As long as there is money in it they will milk it for everything.
The highway patrol are scum they chose thier job cause they enjoy writing tickets like the power hungry control freaks they are, all reason is gone and its MONEY MONEY MONEY.I haven met a HP that hasnt got some mental issues going on yet
Having spent alot of time in highway patrol cars myself I think im fairly qualified to say. :shake:

This I agree with. If its not revenue gathering then why do we get a fine.

also the police dont have to issue 75000 more speeding tickets this year thats what they expect to do. also its for everything not just speeding.

Quasievil
2nd June 2004, 12:40
It depends what you were doing in those HP cars. If you mean that you were a HP cop yourself once then I suppose you have a point, although it's strange that you don't make an exception for yourself.
On the other hand if you were sitting in the car waiting for the cop to write out a ticket your jaundiced view would be understandable, even though your statement is wildly exaggerated.
The only other reason for having spent some time in patrol cars that I can think of would be as an observer for some project or research and I find it hard to believe that you spent so much time with so many different cops as to be able to justify your sweeping generalisation.
FWIW the worst behaviour I have met with from a traffic cop was a slightly impatient and somewhat arrogant retort to the effect that I shouldn't try to tell him how to do his job, when I was (politely) trying to explain something to him. Scarcely enough to justify the description "scum".


Youre right Scum is to strong a term, perhaps misguided fools that have the task of screwing every last cent out of ordinary law biding New Zealanders for slight road offences.When the resourse could be better spent elswhere.
I cannot believe that some here think that its not about the money :brick: .
As an example ,where do you find speed cameras, at high risk accident spots??? No you will find them where it is normally safest to do "a little" more than the posted speed limit, why???? to make money of course.
If you ever want to find truth in this world about most issues follow the money trail there you will find answers .

Quasievil
2nd June 2004, 12:46
Obviously we have some police members here on this forum, you should also realise that not all of us have a "get out of jail" for free card like you do,some of us actually pay a fine. I have witnessed two incidence when this has happened, and it does, we even let a guy go cause he flashed a card identifying himself as a prison guard.
So one rule for all huh?? yeah right :ar15:

Hitcher
2nd June 2004, 13:23
We must rise up against the Forces of Evil and Darkness, brothers and sisters!!

DEATH_INC.
2nd June 2004, 20:26
Perhaps the people that pulled out in front of you weren't able to judge the distance between themselves and you because you were travelling well above the speed limit.

The first guy had 'sunstrike'(or so he said) but pulled across the road anyway,the second (a woman with a child in the car) 'didn't see me',perhaps because she pulled a u-turn from behind a truck that had just passed her......
Perhaps it was just poor driving ability......

DEATH_INC.
2nd June 2004, 20:28
We must rise up against the Forces of Evil and Darkness, brothers and sisters!!
AMEN to that :not: (Oops,that wasn't too religious was it?)

bgd
2nd June 2004, 20:33
The major cause of accidents is the driver doing something inappropriate whether it be driving too fast for the conditions, not looking, etc. - in other words poor judgement.

So if there is some grain of truth in the above statement to reduce accidents substantially you have to target that poor judgement. And you do that by education. And of course that's not easy. It's not about knowing the road rules and how to drive a car, that bit is covered already. What you require is an attitude shift. Drivers need to recognise that they are fallible and that there are other road users who have the same rights that they do.

Start getting drivers thinking about others and they may be a little more vigilant when doing that U turn.

Plod can target speeding all they like but that accident rate isn’t going to change greatly. It may have some impact but unless you get down to the root of the problem things are going to carry on just as before.

If it’s a quick fix they are after then it’s simple. Build motorways. In the UK motorways are the safest places to drive based on accident rate and number of miles travelled. And the speed on motorways is significantly higher than on NZ roads.

But if you really want to make a difference then change the attitude of drivers.

jimbo600
2nd June 2004, 21:17
Obviously we have some police members here on this forum, you should also realise that not all of us have a "get out of jail" for free card like you do,some of us actually pay a fine. I have witnessed two incidence when this has happened, and it does, we even let a guy go cause he flashed a card identifying himself as a prison guard.
So one rule for all huh?? yeah right :ar15:

Actually the HP love catching real cops. I have heard many a tale about HP ticketing another HP car, and ticketing a detective going 100 in a 80 because he was new to the area and thought that it was a 100k zone. Another incident I know of is a HP member being posted down South Is somewhere, and on appointment proceeded to wonder around the station carpark issuing infringements to private cars etc.

Now I am not a cop, but have completed Photography training with a few while I was in the RNZAF.

Lou Girardin
3rd June 2004, 06:40
I fair question. I'd like to know the answer to that one as well.


Lou is this just your attempt at humor or do you really believe NZ resembles Nazi Germany?

Spud, You should know that I was referring to Goebbels maxim;
If the lie is big enough, and you repeat it often enough, the people will believe it.
When are you going to enter into a debate without personal attacks on anyone you don't agree with? I'm referring to the 'mental issues' comment. It seems that your self esteem is so tightly bound to your job that you can't bear any criticism of that job. Loosen up.

RiderInBlack
3rd June 2004, 07:13
"Of course its revenue gathering, if not why do they ping you for cash when doing a little over the speed limit, I got done for 114kp/h going down a hill a good conditions, they made me pay $80.00 and took 20 points, DID THEY HAVE TO TAKE CASH?? 20 points is plenty punishment enough for a slight road rule breach.its ALL about the money," Quasievil

I would hope that some of this revenue would find it's way to Hospitals (probably via ACC) as it is very expence to treat patients (the ones that survive) with motor vechicle injuries. Then there is the ambulances and the fire brigade, who all love working shit hours for nothing because they enjoy MVA's so much.

PS: have worked as an orthopeadic nurse and have treated my share of MVA's.

spudchucka
3rd June 2004, 08:58
No Problem, A old freind of mine got me into helping the police out on night shift at the Ngruawhahia station, at the time they patroled State 1 , I would go out as a volunteer two or three nights a week ,as the cops had to have two cars but only one cop in each, they liked having volunteers to help out.
I relaised after a high speed chase from Huntly to Meremere were a VTR1000 was trying to get away at around 200kp/h (a speed we matched after the chase was called of ,that this is ridiculous and is not a safe thing to do, so I stopped helping out. This event also strengthed my opinion about the mental state of those cops involved. The VTR was doing 94 km/h in a 70km/h sure he made a run for it, but the cops were intent on getting him desipte the risk to themselves the public and the biker. The chase was called off but they turned the lights of and continued. have you been in a cop car doing 200km/h they dont corner to well.
so after this and other events I hold my qualified opinion :Pokey:

No Imnot advocating the use of speed restrictors at all, but the point was that if the government and its police cronies were serious they would advocate and instigate legislation to make them mandatory

Can you imagine the public outcry when the Govt announced that as of today all vehicles on NZ roads will be fitted with speed restrictors?? Who would pay for it? If you are going to knock current policy don't do it by dreaming up some hairy arsed scheme that isn't remotely realistic.

Why judge the entire road policing / highway patrol because of the actions of a few dorks that you have encountered? Sure you have witnessed some pretty sad police practice by a few individuals but don't forget they are individuals, they make their own choices. Judge the people involved not the organisation.

spudchucka
3rd June 2004, 09:16
Spud, You should know that I was referring to Goebbels maxim;
If the lie is big enough, and you repeat it often enough, the people will believe it.
When are you going to enter into a debate without personal attacks on anyone you don't agree with? I'm referring to the 'mental issues' comment. It seems that your self esteem is so tightly bound to your job that you can't bear any criticism of that job. Loosen up.
As far as I'm concerned its about what is fair and reasonable critisism. If Dr Evil wants to imply that all HP officers have mental disorders then he opens himself up for critisism as well. What goes around comes around, that is one of the laws of the universe as far as I'm concerned.

Yes I am passionate about my job and I am happy to defend the police on issues that I believe are not being presented fairly or correctly. Having said that I am not so blind that I can't see fault in the police or Govt policies, there are heaps of areas that can be improved. The police is an organisation that pretty much every person has an opinion on and thats fair enough. What happens all to often however is that peoples opinions are based on mis-information. Information passed along by friends, relatives, workmates, the media etc and by the time it gets to places like this forum it is twisted out of all comprehension.

If you look back I think that you will see that I have never started one of these threads on police this or that. If people don't want me to tackle these issues then don't bloody post them up in the first place.

As for Goebbels maxim, yes I see your point. I am no fan of the LTSA stat spouting spokespersons either but I resent any inference that suggests any similarity between Nazi Germany and NZ or our police service.

James Deuce
3rd June 2004, 09:37
As far as I'm concerned its about what is fair and reasonable critisism. If Dr Evil wants to imply that all HP officers have mental disorders then he opens himself up for critisism as well. What goes around comes around, that is one of the laws of the universe as far as I'm concerned.

Yes I am passionate about my job and I am happy to defend the police on issues that I believe are not being presented fairly or correctly. Having said that I am not so blind that I can't see fault in the police or Govt policies, there are heaps of areas that can be improved. The police is an organisation that pretty much every person has an opinion on and thats fair enough. What happens all to often however is that peoples opinions are based on mis-information. Information passed along by friends, relatives, workmates, the media etc and by the time it gets to places like this forum it is twisted out of all comprehension.

If you look back I think that you will see that I have never started one of these threads on police this or that. If people don't want me to tackle these issues then don't bloody post them up in the first place.

As for Goebbels maxim, yes I see your point. I am no fan of the LTSA stat spouting spokespersons either but I resent any inference that suggests any similarity between Nazi Germany and NZ or our police service.

There are plenty of similarities in NZ to Nazi Germany. Restrictions on movement and ethnically based restrictions on property rights (Maori had NZ stolen from under them by force and guile and aren't allowed to point that out without howls of protest from "right thinking" kiwis) to name but two.

Quasievil
3rd June 2004, 09:53
Can you imagine the public outcry when the Govt announced that as of today all vehicles on NZ roads will be fitted with speed restrictors?? Who would pay for it? If you are going to knock current policy don't do it by dreaming up some hairy arsed scheme that isn't remotely realistic.

Why judge the entire road policing / highway patrol because of the actions of a few dorks that you have encountered? Sure you have witnessed some pretty sad police practice by a few individuals but don't forget they are individuals, they make their own choices. Judge the people involved not the organisation.

I can imagine the public outcry and it would be loud, I couldnt imagine it happening, but with the idiots at ltsa who knows.The govt of course would make us pay for it.
I will knock any damn policy I like, the current one is garbage and is only about money, end of story.
Are you saying that the current scheme is not hairy arsed? are you saying it is realistic? HP have not got a shit show of improving road safety by targeting people doing fractions over the speed limit, all it does do is encourage dis respect for the HP and the police in general. Even non HP police would agree with that, the HP gives the police a bad name with its enforcment tactics. Within Police as a organisation, who gets the nice new cars? the flash warm jackets, the latest in equipment?? the HP does, Non HP members do have an attitude about it.
I personally dont think there is a problem with Road safety generally speaking, it is a no win situation, as long as humans and Cars have a relationship there will always be deaths on the road.The only avenue for improvement is for advances in Car safety and road construction, over empowered under paid "police IRD service" in cars that are designed to extract cash from the public at every opportunity WILL NOT CHANGE A THING EVER.

And you are right, I shouldnt judge the entire HP based on a few indiviuals I should judge it for the organisation it is. A division of the IRD and that is the limitation of the respect I have for the HP who spend months training to scare the living shit out of people (flashing lights etc) for doing stuff all wrong.
"WOW great police work !!!! you showed him for doing 111kp/h "

Now the real Police I have every respect for :niceone:

spudchucka
3rd June 2004, 09:57
There are plenty of similarities in NZ to Nazi Germany. Restrictions on movement and ethnically based restrictions on property rights (Maori had NZ stolen from under them by force and guile and aren't allowed to point that out without howls of protest from "right thinking" kiwis) to name but two.
There have been plenty of injustices done in this country but not to the scale of what happened in Europe during the 1930's.

Quasievil
3rd June 2004, 10:12
There are plenty of similarities in NZ to Nazi Germany. Restrictions on movement and ethnically based restrictions on property rights (Maori had NZ stolen from under them by force and guile and aren't allowed to point that out without howls of protest from "right thinking" kiwis) to name but two.

And the personal ID cards which were sold to NZers as Drivers licenses, which they are on the face of it but being DIGITAL they can be used for all soughts of things, next we will see other information being stored ie, relationship details, educational information,ethnic info, political info we are one step away from this being reality, this is fine no problem, BUT what this does is set a platform for those fools in Wellington to Creep in other things for example, what if the Government decided they wanted an ID card to be presented at all Buses or train stations "to prevent terrorisim" the card is already here, what then if it decided that because of a terrorist threat any one who belonged to a "certain political party" couldnt travel ??
I know this is a bit out there but its only a step away from current situations.

Nazi Germany decided it wanted to be able to identify Jews with the star of david, from this they crept in certain policys to restrict the jews abilities to carry out there lives in the fashion they had been accustomed to, and from there ,well we know the story.
At the end of the day ,I think this is a bit far fetched (like the jews did) but I would prefer not to empower the "political party of the day" with such information on the population.
The age of non privacy is on our door step, we will see this develop over time,
I dont want this happening at all.
So yes there are some similarities, they just arent as extreme (yet)

MikeL
3rd June 2004, 10:44
There are valid points being made by both sides of this debate. It would be helpful in clarifying the issues if egos and the odd chip on the shoulder could be removed from the equation. Here's a slightly different perspective:

Economic and political considerations (most of which are or could be government-directed) have put more vehicles on the roads than before, not just in absolute numbers but per capita. The differential between the performance capabiliies of these modern vehicles and the standard of roading (and legal speed limits) is considerably greater than in the past. Investment in roading lags way behind other similar countries. The procedure for obtaining a licence has changed and the process is now considerably more involved, but it is debateable whether the actual standard of knowledge and skill is more demanding. And of course there is no on-going requirement for driver education once a full licence has been obtained. Recent immigration has put onto our roads a large number of drivers who were trained under very different conditions and have to adapt quickly to different rules, traffic flows and speeds. Overseas visitors and students arrive in large numbers and are able to drive on their national licence which again was obtained under very different circumstances. All these are the result of economic or political developments and decisions occurring at a level way above the individual driver and his responsibility.

And when the inevitable consequence is increased death and injury, are the above factors taken into consideration and the blame fairly apportioned and steps taken to remedy these deficiencies?
No. In their bureaucratic tunnel-vision, the authorities see (or want to see) only one problem: the driver. Just hammer him until you get the desired result. If the desired result happens, keep hammering him because it's obviously working. If the result doesn't happen, hammer him harder.
Is this a fair and reasonable response?

Quasievil
3rd June 2004, 11:01
There are valid points being made by both sides of this debate. It would be helpful in clarifying the issues if egos and the odd chip on the shoulder could be removed from the equation. Here's a slightly different perspective:

Economic and political considerations (most of which are or could be government-directed) have put more vehicles on the roads than before, not just in absolute numbers but per capita. The differential between the performance capabiliies of these modern vehicles and the standard of roading (and legal speed limits) is considerably greater than in the past. Investment in roading lags way behind other similar countries. The procedure for obtaining a licence has changed and the process is now considerably more involved, but it is debateable whether the actual standard of knowledge and skill is more demanding. And of course there is no on-going requirement for driver education once a full licence has been obtained. Recent immigration has put onto our roads a large number of drivers who were trained under very different conditions and have to adapt quickly to different rules, traffic flows and speeds. Overseas visitors and students arrive in large numbers and are able to drive on their national licence which again was obtained under very different circumstances. All these are the result of economic or political developments and decisions occurring at a level way above the individual driver and his responsibility.

And when the inevitable consequence is increased death and injury, are the above factors taken into consideration and the blame fairly apportioned and steps taken to remedy these deficiencies?
No. In their bureaucratic tunnel-vision, the authorities see (or want to see) only one problem: the driver. Just hammer him until you get the desired result. If the desired result happens, keep hammering him because it's obviously working. If the result doesn't happen, hammer him harder.
Is this a fair and reasonable response?

Well Put, they are definately set on Hammering and hammering and hammerring as much as possible, certainly makes you think about the mental state of those who choose to enforce this regime, well does me anyway

vifferman
3rd June 2004, 11:26
The procedure for obtaining a licence has changed and the process is now considerably more involved, but it is debateable whether the actual standard of knowledge and skill is more demanding. And of course there is no on-going requirement for driver education once a full licence has been obtained.
Having helped put two of my three sons through driving tests, I would have to say that apart from being somewhat more standardised, the test is actually LESS demanding than 30 years ago, and is not an adequate test of someone's ability to handle a motor vehicle on the road. And you are quite right about on-going education. How many times do you see some f-wit who doesn't understand that your car won't explode if you drive on a flush median? Or who doesn't understand how roundabouts work? Or how to estimate following distances? Or that the 2-second rule becomes the 4-second rule in the wet?
Why isn't more money diverted from the ticketing revenue to educate drivers, rather than just try and bully/frighten them into complying with (sometimes inappropriate) speed limits? Apparently, the ads in Germany are actually intelligent and informative, and people actually watch them to brush up on skills and learn things. The ads here? A combination of shock tactics ( gore, splatter-fests, threats) and misinformation. Pathetic...

James Deuce
3rd June 2004, 11:38
There have been plenty of injustices done in this country but not to the scale of what happened in Europe during the 1930's.
Parihaka was easily one of the most stomach churning events of 19th Century NZ. Scale isn't the issue. The will to crush babies heads with a Horse's hoof is. Shooting a pregnant woman in the belly is. It is just as evil and impersonal if one person dies at the hands of a government agency as described or one million die. Especially while the rest of the populace remains ignorant by choice or wilfully 100 years later.

vifferman
3rd June 2004, 12:03
The major cause of accidents is the driver doing something inappropriate whether it be driving too fast for the conditions, not looking, etc. - in other words poor judgement.
.....So if there is some grain of truth in the above statement to reduce accidents substantially you have to target that poor judgement. And you do that by education. And of course that's not easy. It's not about knowing the road rules and how to drive a car, that bit is covered already. What you require is an attitude shift. Drivers need to recognise that they are fallible and that there are other road users who have the same rights that they do.But if you really want to make a difference then change the attitude of drivers.

BGD, you hit the nail squarely on the head here. :bash:
This is EXACTLY what I've been boring my family to death with for years now. And I recognise I myself have developed some bad attitudes to the privilege of driving on the road, and need to change that. But then I'm a fairly introspective person, and I'm well aware of what is at fault, what needs to change. The speed camera campaign hasn't challenged any of my beliefs or attitudes, because it's oversimplistic, unintelligent, and based on flawed logic and incorrect bald-faced lies and catch phrases.
"Speed Kills". Bullshit.
"If you're prepared to speed, you're a cold-blooded killer". Bullshit. I am a compassionate, warm and loving person, who sometimes exceeds the speed limit, when it's safe to do so, in a well-maintained, safe, modern car, designed to travel at twice the speed limit and equipped for emergency situations. Yes, it's still a risk. I accept that risk to myself, my family, and other road users. But it's the same (or lesser) risk as if I travel below the speed limit, become bored and drowsy, and don't stop for a rest. Are there any ads about that? It's the same (or lesser) risk as if I travel at the speed limit with a dirty windscreen, tired wiper blades in marginal weather. Or if my tyres are worn. Or my suspension's ferked. Or I have a headache. Or some plonker is out on the road after drinking alcohol. Or some eedjit is showing off to his mates. Or someone coming the other way has his driving lights on (wanker). Or someone's manhood is impugned by someone else passing him.

If people are bullied/frightened into complying with speed limits, it's not going to change their attitudes. Nor will pinging someone who inadvertantly drifts over the speed limit downhill on a safe piece of road and encounters a speed camera operator who is making the highways safer by punishing people who make a minor mistake.

Punishing people for speeding won't stop people following too closely, or those driving too fast for the conditions, or those who drive at 90 km/h mile after mile and force others to pass at an inappropriate place, or those who treat the road as a racetrack, or those who tow trailers and never pull over to let others past. It won't stop people driving through pedestrian crossings, or failing to indicate, or zigzagging from one lane to another on the motorway to save a few seconds of travel time. It doesn't address the attitudes of those wankers who think it's cool to have their driving lights on all the time. Or tailgaters. Or crapulent used Jap cars that aren't fit for our roads. Or the male Kiwi attitude that it's somehow an affront if people pass you, so everyone speeds up when there are passing lanes. These are ALL attitude problems, and NONE of these are addressed by the emphasis on speeding.

If the road toll is too high, and it's important, then find out what the problem really is, what ALL the contributing factors are, what it's going to cost to fix it properly, then fix it. Maybe the Gummint could use some of the money from 1 million tickets to fund a proper study into how to educate drivers so they're not a risk to themselves and other road users. Maybe they could use more than a third of the road tax for the purpose for which it was intended...

spudchucka
3rd June 2004, 13:16
I will knock any damn policy I like, the current one is garbage and is only about money, end of story.

That is your opinion and I'll respect that however my opinion is that you are wrong, end of story.

Are you saying that the current scheme is not hairy arsed? are you saying it is realistic?

Go back and look at the facts and figures on the "police statistics" thread. The road toll has come down apart from a horror year in 2003. The policy does work and the policy makers don't give a stuff if folk like yourself don't like it.

all it does do is encourage dis respect for the HP and the police in general. Even non HP police would agree with that, the HP gives the police a bad name with its enforcment tactics.

Yes I agree that traffic enforcement does contribute to a general dissatisfaction towards the police. I would love to see a change to a separate traffic branch.

Within Police as a organisation, who gets the nice new cars? the flash warm jackets, the latest in equipment?? the HP does, Non HP members do have an attitude about it.

Yes they get nice cars. They also get funding from ACC etc to pay for the nice new cars. GDB cars get used and abused, they get used as battering rams, driven over gutters, go from being stone cold on a winters night to being reamed out on the way to an emergency. The HP car is the cops office and is only driven by one person. GDB cars are driven by one shift and then handed straight over to the next shift. They get blood and spew all through te back seat, the seats get ripped to bits by the cops duty belts, they clock up untold kms in no time because they are on the road 24 / 7. There are a heap of reasons why the HP cars are nicer than the GDB ones and not just as you imply because they are the "revenue collection" branch.

I personally dont think there is a problem with Road safety generally speaking

I guess that because you live in the Waikato that you have become accustomed to a high level of road carnage and are willing to accept unnecessary deaths on the road.

The only avenue for improvement is for advances in Car safety and road construction

This is another avenue for improvement but not the only one. Flash, modern cars with all the safety features have accident too and people die in them.

over empowered under paid "police IRD service" in cars that are designed to extract cash from the public at every opportunity WILL NOT CHANGE A THING EVER.

Ok then lets just stop policing the roads and see what happens.

And you are right, I shouldnt judge the entire HP based on a few indiviuals I should judge it for the organisation it is. A division of the IRD and that is the limitation of the respect I have for the HP who spend months training to scare the living shit out of people (flashing lights etc) for doing stuff all wrong.

You have the choice, like everyone does as to whether you want to contribute to the revenue collected through traffic enforcement. It isn't a cumpolsary "tax" imposed on all citizens, you choose whether you want to pay into that fund.

What is this crap statement about months of training to scare the living shit out of people with flashing lights? Get a bloody grip of yourself mate.

Now the real Police I have every respect for

So have I!

spudchucka
3rd June 2004, 13:21
And the personal ID cards which were sold to NZers as Drivers licenses, which they are on the face of it but being DIGITAL they can be used for all soughts of things, next we will see other information being stored ie, relationship details, educational information,ethnic info, political info we are one step away from this being reality, this is fine no problem, BUT what this does is set a platform for those fools in Wellington to Creep in other things for example, what if the Government decided they wanted an ID card to be presented at all Buses or train stations "to prevent terrorisim" the card is already here, what then if it decided that because of a terrorist threat any one who belonged to a "certain political party" couldnt travel ??
I know this is a bit out there but its only a step away from current situations.

Nazi Germany decided it wanted to be able to identify Jews with the star of david, from this they crept in certain policys to restrict the jews abilities to carry out there lives in the fashion they had been accustomed to, and from there ,well we know the story.
At the end of the day ,I think this is a bit far fetched (like the jews did) but I would prefer not to empower the "political party of the day" with such information on the population.
The age of non privacy is on our door step, we will see this develop over time,
I dont want this happening at all.
So yes there are some similarities, they just arent as extreme (yet)
I don't want to start name calling here but jeez, you are sounding exremely paranoid there.

Coldkiwi
3rd June 2004, 13:22
too right firestormer

wow, the germans have INFORMATIVE road ads??? what a concept? I can hardly imagine one!

i think even a shock and gore advert on the telly about tailgating would be damn useful. has ANYONE seen any ads/leaflets about that?

jrandom
3rd June 2004, 13:27
i think even a shock and gore add about tailgating would be damn useful

Yes, but it would be more of a 'shock and expensive tail-light damage' ad.

spudchucka
3rd June 2004, 13:29
There are valid points being made by both sides of this debate. It would be helpful in clarifying the issues if egos and the odd chip on the shoulder could be removed from the equation. Here's a slightly different perspective:

Economic and political considerations (most of which are or could be government-directed) have put more vehicles on the roads than before, not just in absolute numbers but per capita. The differential between the performance capabiliies of these modern vehicles and the standard of roading (and legal speed limits) is considerably greater than in the past. Investment in roading lags way behind other similar countries. The procedure for obtaining a licence has changed and the process is now considerably more involved, but it is debateable whether the actual standard of knowledge and skill is more demanding. And of course there is no on-going requirement for driver education once a full licence has been obtained. Recent immigration has put onto our roads a large number of drivers who were trained under very different conditions and have to adapt quickly to different rules, traffic flows and speeds. Overseas visitors and students arrive in large numbers and are able to drive on their national licence which again was obtained under very different circumstances. All these are the result of economic or political developments and decisions occurring at a level way above the individual driver and his responsibility.

And when the inevitable consequence is increased death and injury, are the above factors taken into consideration and the blame fairly apportioned and steps taken to remedy these deficiencies?
No. In their bureaucratic tunnel-vision, the authorities see (or want to see) only one problem: the driver. Just hammer him until you get the desired result. If the desired result happens, keep hammering him because it's obviously working. If the result doesn't happen, hammer him harder.
Is this a fair and reasonable response?
Thank you for your response, which by the way I do find to be fair & reasonable. I'm not going to say I support 100% hammering the driving public but we all know what will happen if we are caught. If the powers that be consider their efforts are making a difference then of course they will keep doing what they believe is working. If they suddenly backed off and made an announcement that "because the road toll is now at the desired level we will no longer be policing the roads at the same level" the road toll would be up in no time and they would have to start all over. Its human nature that when the pressure comes off we all go back to our old bad habits.

So the simple answer is, don't give them the opportunity to take your hard earned $$$ in the first place. If you get caught, take it on the chin and be more careful next time. Personally I think that is more than fair & reasonable.

spudchucka
3rd June 2004, 13:32
Parihaka was easily one of the most stomach churning events of 19th Century NZ. Scale isn't the issue. The will to crush babies heads with a Horse's hoof is. Shooting a pregnant woman in the belly is. It is just as evil and impersonal if one person dies at the hands of a government agency as described or one million die. Especially while the rest of the populace remains ignorant by choice or wilfully 100 years later.
I agree, Parihaka was abhorent but how does that qualify comparing NZ today to Germany during the 30's?

vifferman
3rd June 2004, 13:39
I guess part of it is the current ads have limited effectiveness because people are either annoyed by the stupidity of some of them, or can't identify with them. F'rinstance, the ads where Todd loses his license for speeding most people couldn't identify with, because they'd just go, "Yeah, but Todd's such a loser anyway (and so are his friends)."
In our household (with 2 teenagers and a 20 YO), Todd has become an object of mirth and even a new term for losers, as in: "Look at that car full of Todds", or "Don't be such a Todd!". It has no effect at all as far as it's message. Maybe they should change it to "Don't be a Todd!" :D

And the one with the two Falcons braking to a halt:
"But they're Aussies, so they can't drive anyway."
"What losers - they could see that truck from miles away - why didn't they swerve?"
"Don't drive a Falcon - they have shit brakes!"
"They're just ripping off the Matrix special effects." :lol:

spudchucka
3rd June 2004, 13:42
"Speed Kills". Bullshit.
One more time for luck, hopefully it might start to sink in soon.

Crashes are caused by many factors. Speed is one of them, usually because it was innapropriate for the conditions.

However, speed is a major contributing factor to the trauma suffered as a result of a crash. Therefore I am afraid that speed does in fact kill. Especially when it is accompanied by stoppping extremeley quickly as is the case when vehicles colide.

If you don't believe me get your old maths and physics books from highschool out and go figure it out for yourselves. Alternatively go out and join one of the emergency services, police, fire, ambo and see for yourselves what happens to people in road crashes.

Quasievil
3rd June 2004, 13:45
That is your opinion and I'll respect that however my opinion is that you are wrong, end of story.


Go back and look at the facts and figures on the "police statistics" thread. The road toll has come down apart from a horror year in 2003. The policy does work and the policy makers don't give a stuff if folk like yourself don't like it.
Well thats the latest year to pass, apart from the last two months of low deaths, no change?


Yes I agree that traffic enforcement does contribute to a general dissatisfaction towards the police. I would love to see a change to a separate traffic branch.
There is a seperate traffic branch its the highway patrol isnt it ?


Yes they get nice cars. They also get funding from ACC etc to pay for the nice new cars. GDB cars get used and abused, they get used as battering rams, driven over gutters, go from being stone cold on a winters night to being reamed out on the way to an emergency. The HP car is the cops office and is only driven by one person. GDB cars are driven by one shift and then handed straight over to the next shift. They get blood and spew all through te back seat, the seats get ripped to bits by the cops duty belts, they clock up untold kms in no time because they are on the road 24 / 7. There are a heap of reasons why the HP cars are nicer than the GDB ones and not just as you imply because they are the "revenue collection" branch.


I guess that because you live in the Waikato that you have become accustomed to a high level of road carnage and are willing to accept unnecessary deaths on the road.

Yes definately accustomed to high rates of road deaths, but I cant see the HP making any difference,fact is they arent if you look at the sign out front of the HP office


This is another avenue for improvement but not the only one. Flash, modern cars with all the safety features have accident too and people die in them.

True but improvements here will lead to lower safety


Ok then lets just stop policing the roads and see what happens.
I couldnt imagine that ever happening cause there is good money to be made


You have the choice, like everyone does as to whether you want to contribute to the revenue collected through traffic enforcement. It isn't a cumpolsary "tax" imposed on all citizens, you choose whether you want to pay into that fund.
I dont speed as a rule, Ive had one ticket in 4 years and that was 114 going down a hill on a 4 lane bit of road with no traffic around,revenue gathering!!

What is this crap statement about months of training to scare the living shit out of people with flashing lights? Get a bloody grip of yourself mate.

I have had conversations with people who have shit themselves seeing a HP car traveling up behind them lights and occasionally sirens on who have been quite shocked by it. I have also been in a HP car riding yellow lines to get through traffic at speed scaring the shit out of all around only to stop a mild traffic offender.
I have also been in a HP car where a car was stopped, the driver did not have a NZ valid license and a family of 5 including young children were turfed out of the car ,the car towed away and the family left on State 1 at 11.30am at night in winter where they remained for over an hour for a ride. The cop I was with is no longer a freind because of it.So yes they like the power of being able to scare people at "some " use it to the extreme, I know they do ,absolutely.

So have I!

I dont particulary want to lock horns with you Spud, I to respect your opinions and I think alot of them are valid, however I have an opinion and it to is valid (as far as Im concerned)
As you are a cop I do respect you, I think we need to agree to disagree on a few points , yes ? :yes:

spudchucka
3rd June 2004, 13:56
I dont particulary want to lock horns with you Spud, I to respect your opinions and I think alot of them are valid, however I have an opinion and it to is valid (as far as Im concerned)
As you are a cop I do respect you, I think we need to agree to disagree on a few points , yes ? :yes:
No problem, if you want to leave it at that its fine with me. These arguements go around & around and often get nowhere. I'm not a HP cop and I never will be so at the end of the day its really no skin off my nose if people hate those guys. I'll agree that there are sadly some big time tossers in that section of the police but I honestly can say they are not the majority.

vifferman
3rd June 2004, 14:40
One more time for luck, hopefully it might start to sink in soon.

That sort of condescending tone is WHY people don't listen.


Crashes are caused by many factors. Speed is one of them, usually because it was innapropriate for the conditions.
Agreed. That is my point. It's attitudes I was talking about. If you drive at a speed inappropriate for the conditions, then you need an attitude adjustment.
"I'm a good driver".
"I'll never crash."
"Only idiots can't handle speed."
Or whatever.


However, speed is a major contributing factor to the trauma suffered as a result of a crash. Therefore I am afraid that speed does in fact kill. Especially when it is accompanied by stoppping extremeley quickly as is the case when vehicles colide.
That's not in dispute.
However, it doesn't mean "Speed will kill you" or "if you don't speed you will be safe" or "If you exceed the speed limit anywhere, at any time, regardless of the conditions and your skill, you will die".
Nor does it mean that "If you exceed the speed limit, you are a heinous cold-blooded murderer."


If you don't believe me get your old maths and physics books from highschool out and go figure it out for yourselves. Alternatively go out and join one of the emergency services, police, fire, ambo and see for yourselves what happens to people in road crashes.
I know what happens to people in road crashes. I've been on the receiving end of a few myself. I do know physics too - to year 2 university level, so you don't need to adopt a patronising tone with me.
I also have a vivid imagination, and remember what pain feels like.

My point is that the focus is wrong, and deals with the SYMPTOMS of the real problem, and very poorly at that. Not only is it NOT significantly improving people's attitudes, but it's also alienating those very people who need to BUY the whole concept of taking responsibility for the consequences of their bad attitudes.

The only real winners in this whole campaign are the ad agencies and the gummint's consolidated fund. And here's the acid test - ask anyone you meet in the street if they believe that the more tickets that are issued for exceeding an arbitrary, blanket speed limit, the safer the roads will be as a result. Do YOU believe that?

sAsLEX
3rd June 2004, 15:32
very well said firestormer agree with you on all those points

sAsLEX
3rd June 2004, 15:36
The americans had a problem with people not wearing seatbelts causing huge numbers of deaths when combined with the lack of safety glass back in the day, that is how airbags came about as they had some ammendment saying they didn't have to wear them.

How about we do it the American way and remove the lowest common denominator, the plonk behind the wheel, and automate all our highways so people can not avoid being safe!

vifferman
3rd June 2004, 15:44
How about we do it the American way and remove the lowest common denominator, the plonk behind the wheel, and automate all our highways so people can not avoid being safe!
Actually, we have had the technology for a long time to enable motorways to be automated. Type in or select your destination, push "Go" and the autopilot takes over. Traffic would move faster, and there'd be no accidents. Fuel consumption would be lower (computer-controlled acceleration), there'd be no accidents, no gridlock, no worries.

It'd be exactly like it is now: people travelling bumper to bumper, able to do their makeup/shave/read the paper/eat breakfast while driving....

vifferman
3rd June 2004, 15:45
very well said firestormer agree with you on all those points
Damn! (Sorry JC, Allah, Satan and Zed).
Must've written it badly then. :thud:

spudchucka
3rd June 2004, 16:01
That sort of condescending tone is WHY people don't listen.
I'll make no apologoies as it was a stupid statement in the first place.



Agreed. That is my point. It's attitudes I was talking about. If you drive at a speed inappropriate for the conditions, then you need an attitude adjustment.
"I'm a good driver".
"I'll never crash."
"Only idiots can't handle speed."
Or whatever.

Agreed, attitudes are a big problem and in fact some of the worst attitudes I've ever dealt with came from people who were speeding inappropriately.



That's not in dispute.
However, it doesn't mean "Speed will kill you" or "if you don't speed you will be safe" or "If you exceed the speed limit anywhere, at any time, regardless of the conditions and your skill, you will die".
Nor does it mean that "If you exceed the speed limit, you are a heinous cold-blooded murderer."
Stepping out your front door is fraut with danger, getting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle just worsens the odds of getting killed or injured. You may never speed and be unlucky enough to be killed by someone who was speeding. No one is saying, "don't speed and you will be as safe as houses" or "if you speed you will die". Its about accepting the risks and every road user doing their best to minimise them. If that means slowing down a little then just do it for everyones sake.



I also have a vivid imagination, and remember what pain feels like.
Thats a good thing not to forget.



My point is that the focus is wrong, and deals with the SYMPTOMS of the real problem, and very poorly at that. Not only is it NOT significantly improving people's attitudes, but it's also alienating those very people who need to BUY the whole concept of taking responsibility for the consequences of their bad attitudes.
There are road rules for a reason. If they aren't enforced there would be constant chaos on our roads. Maybe the focus is wrong in the bigger picture but without traffic enforcement you would have to accept a lot more people getting killed, maybe some of your own family members. Surely the best place to foster good attitudes is in the family / home environment, after all our kids usually grow up to reflect our own attitudes and values. The police can't have that level of influence over people and if you want the govt to do it then isn't that some form of "social engineering", (getting back to the previous comments re Nazi Germany). People need to take responsibility for their own attitudes and not blame agencies like the police or CYF's for what they need to take ownership of themselves.


The only real winners in this whole campaign are the ad agencies and the gummint's consolidated fund. And here's the acid test - ask anyone you meet in the street if they believe that the more tickets that are issued for exceeding an arbitrary, blanket speed limit, the safer the roads will be as a result. Do YOU believe that?
What I believe is that police out on our roads enforcing the road rules and slowing people down does make the roads safer. I don't give a flying f**k how many tickets the police issue. If people are dumb enough to keep speeding and driving like idiots then they have nothing to moan about.

modalx
3rd June 2004, 16:35
For those that are unaware of the late 1990s Montana state experience with "Reasonable and Prudent" speed laws as opposed to rigid numerical laws here is a link. http://www.motorists.org/pressreleases/montana.html

Basically the state had its lowest ever fatal accident rate 4 years into a no-fixed-speed-limit trial. A year after reintroducing speed limits (a politically correct decision because of federal pressure) they experienced a modern high in fatal accidents.

It is about the money but it is also about a deeply held belief that people will revert to anarchy if they are not controlled. This is a fascist position, more common in Western societies, where Judeo-Christian beliefs tell us all men are essentially evil. Because of this underlying misconception, our rulers feel it is their duty to protect us from ourselves.

When most leaders are faced with a problem like the road toll they feel forced to act. They will almost always rush to the most obvious solution based on the simplest analysis. When faced with a choice between an action that has only a slight chance of success and inaction, they will choose action every time. They will do this even when there is strong evidence that inaction would be the best course.

The stats used by LTSA to justify the current policy are simply invalid. Any first year statistics student could confirm that it is not possible to draw the conclusions they have from the data available.

The key fact is that the vast majority injury accidents occur below the posted limit. The same event would have occurred if the speed limit was 200kph or, dare I suggest, did not exist. :msn-wink:

Our only hope is enlightened leadership - so there goes all hope.

vifferman
3rd June 2004, 16:48
No one is saying, "don't speed and you will be as safe as houses" or "if you speed you will die".
Isn't "Speed Kills" effectively the same as "If you speed, you will die"? If not, then the inference is there (and very strongly), as is the inference that the speed toll would be magically fixed if no-one ever broke the speed limit.
I still maintain that the gummint are trying to fix a problem by addressing it in an over-simplistic way that tackles only one symptom, not the root cause.


Its about accepting the risks and every road user doing their best to minimise them. If that means slowing down a little then just do it for everyones sake.
That's a very sensible statement, Spud, and I agree. :2thumbsup


There are road rules for a reason. If they aren't enforced there would be constant chaos on our roads.
Correct. I have no problem with the enforcement of road rules, and I am well aware that it is the responsibility/job of the police to do this. I do have a problem with enforcement being largely limited to one particular law that is easy to police and which also happens to be a good money-spinner. Not a criticism of the police, but the bureaucrats. For example, if road safety is the ultimate aim, and 90% of injury-causing accidents (or is just accidents? I'm afraid I don't know for sure) occur at intersections, why isn't more effort put into education and enforcement around the rules that govern intersections? I may occasionally break the speed limit, but I never run red lights, and always stop at stop signs. People who don't, make me :angry2:
(I have a pet theory that red light runners would very quickly stop this dangerous habit if road spikes protruded from the road just past the line as soon as the light turned red...)


Maybe the focus is wrong in the bigger picture but without traffic enforcement you would have to accept a lot more people getting killed, maybe some of your own family members.
As I said, I have NO problem with traffic enforcement. It needs to be fair though, and perhaps more importantly (given this thread) SEEN to be fair.


Surely the best place to foster good attitudes is in the family / home environment, after all our kids usually grow up to reflect our own attitudes and values. The police can't have that level of influence over people and if you want the govt to do it then isn't that some form of "social engineering", (getting back to the previous comments re Nazi Germany). People need to take responsibility for their own attitudes and not blame agencies like the police or CYF's for what they need to take ownership of themselves.
I agree wholeheartedly.


What I believe is that police out on our roads enforcing the road rules and slowing people down does make the roads safer. I don't give a flying f**k how many tickets the police issue. If people are dumb enough to keep speeding and driving like idiots then they have nothing to moan about.
Yup, I totally agree, and it wasn't my intention to blame the police for the shortcomings in policy/action. I also take to heart your points about good attitudes being fostered in the home, and about minimising risks to yourself / your family / other road users.

vifferman
3rd June 2004, 16:51
When most leaders are faced with a problem like the road toll they feel forced to act. They will almost always rush to the most obvious solution based on the simplest analysis. When faced with a choice between an action that has only a slight chance of success and inaction, they will choose action every time. They will do this even when there is strong evidence that inaction would be the best course.

The stats used by LTSA to justify the current policy are simply invalid. Any first year statistics student could confirm that it is not possible to draw the conclusions they have from the data available.

Our only hope is enlightened leadership - so there goes all hope.
Well said, Modalx. Uh.. how do you pronounce that?

sAsLEX
3rd June 2004, 17:57
What annoys me is that the other day I see on the news a guy being put away for ten years after killing one of his mates, not for the first time, while drunk and yet he had previously caused death through this and had soo many convictions.

The media labelled him as New Zealands most dangerous person on the road. My question...why was he ever allowed back behind the wheel?? He was a repeat offender had practically murdered his mate previously but was allowed to do it again.

And, I may be wrong, but i still think he hasn't been permenantly barred from driving, maybe for a few years but people like this should never be able to operate a deadly weapon ever again!

scumdog
3rd June 2004, 18:44
Of course its revenue gathering, if not why do they ping you for cash when doing a little over the speed limit, I got done for 114kp/h going down a hill a good conditions, they made me pay $80.00 and took 20 points, DID THEY HAVE TO TAKE CASH?? 20 points is plenty punishment enough for a slight road rule breach.its ALL about the money, If they were serious about speed being a MAJOR problem as they would have you believe they could do all soughts of things ie speed restrict cars that come into the country.
As long as there is money in it they will milk it for everything.
The highway patrol are scum they chose thier job cause they enjoy writing tickets like the power hungry control freaks they are, all reason is gone and its MONEY MONEY MONEY.I haven met a HP that hasnt got some mental issues going on yet
Having spent alot of time in highway patrol cars myself I think im fairly qualified to say. :shake:
Grow up, Just don't drive too fast and you'll be o.k., you must have a different brand of H.P. cops where you come from ( or you imagine too much), how would you like it if they said " we are going to get rid of fines, if you exceed the limit by more than 15 km an hour we will just take your wheels off you for 28 days instead" that way you would be saved the anguish of thinking it was only money grabbing eh?

Quasievil
3rd June 2004, 18:54
Grow up, Just don't drive too fast and you'll be o.k., you must have a different brand of H.P. cops where you come from ( or you imagine too much), how would you like it if they said " we are going to get rid of fines, if you exceed the limit by more than 15 km an hour we will just take your wheels off you for 28 days instead" that way you would be saved the anguish of thinking it was only money grabbing eh?


yeah errrr okay :whistle: ,, sure what ever you think, thanks for the input :spudwave:

Quasievil
3rd June 2004, 19:07
Grow up, Just don't drive too fast and you'll be o.k., you must have a different brand of H.P. cops where you come from ( or you imagine too much), how would you like it if they said " we are going to get rid of fines, if you exceed the limit by more than 15 km an hour we will just take your wheels off you for 28 days instead" that way you would be saved the anguish of thinking it was only money grabbing eh?


Im picking that you are in the business of tax collecting as well, your attitude has already been expressed here by one of you colleuges :moon:

madandy
3rd June 2004, 20:19
:Playnice:

The Police are simply carrying out their duties as instructed by the wizards in Wellington.Its the f/wit politicians and other Buerocrats(sp.) who are to blame for misguided policy enforcement.

The only thing that will truly and happily reduce carnage on our roads is driver training.Making a car safer just increases the speed at which you can safely crash :first: FFS.

Making improvemants to our roads is obviously sorely needed especially to reduce congestion but I've never had a loose moment and blamed the road for my mistake! (just some tar with blue chip spread on it not some homocidal surface)

Quasievil
3rd June 2004, 20:24
:Playnice:

The Police are simply carrying out their duties as instructed by the wizards in Wellington.Its the f/wit politicians and other Buerocrats(sp.) who are to blame for misguided policy enforcement.

The only thing that will truly and happily reduce carnage on our roads is driver training.Making a car safer just increases the speed at which you can safely crash :first: FFS.

Making improvemants to our roads is obviously sorely needed especially to reduce congestion but I've never had a loose moment and blamed the road for my mistake! (just some tar with blue chip spread on it not some homocidal surface)

You started it :banana: :banana: :banana: you going down on Saturday ?? :Offtopic:

spudchucka
3rd June 2004, 21:59
The stats used by LTSA to justify the current policy are simply invalid. Any first year statistics student could confirm that it is not possible to draw the conclusions they have from the data available.

The key fact is that the vast majority injury accidents occur below the posted limit. The same event would have occurred if the speed limit was 200kph or, dare I suggest, did not exist. :msn-wink:
Can you please post those stats re injury accidents occuring below posted speed limits? What about fatal accidents?

modalx
3rd June 2004, 22:06
What I believe is that police out on our roads enforcing the road rules and slowing people down does make the roads safer. I don't give a flying f**k how many tickets the police issue. If people are dumb enough to keep speeding and driving like idiots then they have nothing to moan about.

There are 2 things about this statement that are not supported by any evidence. First there is the implication that enforcing arbitrary speed limits reduces accidents. This might sound right but it is NOT proven. Most accidents occur well below the posted limits. Speed may still be a contributing cause but if it was below the limit how would enforcing the limit have changed anything? Speed may also be a factor when the main cause is something else - like being drunk. There has been an orchestrated effort by the LTSA to misrepresent these facts and link speed limit enforcement to accident reduction. Sadly it is easy to buy in to the lie and many people seem to have done so without much thought.

Secondly there is an implication that speeding and driving like an idiot is the same thing. If speeding means driving beyond your abilities, your machine or without regard for the conditions then this is absolutely true. You could do that at 5ks. But usually "speeding" means exceeding some totally meaningless and unscientific velocity number that by itself and without regard to the myriad of other factors that add up to an accident, is just a joke. For the sake of this unholy number the citizens of this fair land are being held to ransom. Rise up people - we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more!

Of course we will take it. We'll bend over and take it like we always do. Then we'll pay for the privelige of being screwed. But then maybe some of us will act. Subversively. Dirty sneaky anti-authoritarian redlining rubber burning mayhem. Go on - you know you want to. :devil2:

spudchucka
3rd June 2004, 22:17
Isn't "Speed Kills" effectively the same as "If you speed, you will die"?
Well I dont see it like that. "Speed Kills" is a general statement. "If you speed you will die" implies that there will be a definite outcome.


I still maintain that the gummint are trying to fix a problem by addressing it in an over-simplistic way that tackles only one symptom, not the root cause.
If the Govt are guilty of anything it is concentrating on an area that will have the greatest impact with the least possible cost to them. To educate drivers to the point that they might change their attitudes would require a major investment in funds and resources.


That's a very sensible statement, Spud, and I agree.
Thank you.


For example, if road safety is the ultimate aim, and 90% of injury-causing accidents (or is just accidents? I'm afraid I don't know for sure) occur at intersections, why isn't more effort put into education and enforcement around the rules that govern intersections? I may occasionally break the speed limit, but I never run red lights, and always stop at stop signs.
I agree but let me tell you that when a cop is tasked with the job of sitting at an intersection and pinging people who don't stop at stop signs, run red and amber lights, don't know the give way rules, don't indicate etc etc they become the subject of some major abuse. The point being that every person caught breaking the road rules thinks that the police should be out concentrating on something other than what they are currently being pinged for.

I would like to see, (tounge in cheek) all the current road offences dumped and replaced with one offence - "crap driving". That would do me.


Yup, I totally agree, and it wasn't my intention to blame the police for the shortcomings in policy/action. I also take to heart your points about good attitudes being fostered in the home, and about minimising risks to yourself / your family / other road users.
OK, cool, we have found some common ground. Attitudes are everything in life, so much that happens to individuals is directly linked to their personal attitudes.

spudchucka
3rd June 2004, 22:23
What annoys me is that the other day I see on the news a guy being put away for ten years after killing one of his mates, not for the first time, while drunk and yet he had previously caused death through this and had soo many convictions.

The media labelled him as New Zealands most dangerous person on the road. My question...why was he ever allowed back behind the wheel?? He was a repeat offender had practically murdered his mate previously but was allowed to do it again.

And, I may be wrong, but i still think he hasn't been permenantly barred from driving, maybe for a few years but people like this should never be able to operate a deadly weapon ever again!
The guy was disqualified at the time of the crash. Even when people are indefinately disqualifed they still get their licence back once they convince some pussy of a bureucrat that they have changed their ways.

Even if someone is disqualified it doesn't physically stop them from getting behind the wheel, you would have to cut off their arms and legs to do that. :sneaky2:

If you want to blame someone for this, well the guy himself is ultimately responsible but if the Court would just grow some balls then this guy might have been in jail before this thing happened. Jail is the only place for this type of scum.

spudchucka
3rd June 2004, 22:30
There are 2 things about this statement that are not supported by any evidence.
I don't need any evidence because as stated it is my BELIEF. I'm not trying to prove it to you or anyone else but I do believe it and I know it to be true because I am out there seeing for myself the results of cockheads who think they are indestructable. :bleh:


Secondly there is an implication that speeding and driving like an idiot is the same thing. If speeding means driving beyond your abilities, your machine or without regard for the conditions then this is absolutely true.
That is typical of the attitude of the above mentioned so called indestructable cockheads.

MacD
3rd June 2004, 22:51
However, speed is a major contributing factor to the trauma suffered as a result of a crash. Therefore I am afraid that speed does in fact kill. Especially when it is accompanied by stoppping extremeley quickly as is the case when vehicles colide.


Unfortunately this is not what the current road safety ads are telling us!

They say that if you travel at 99km/h you are a virtuous family-loving zero-risk saint who will not kill anybody in a vehicle accident because you are obeying the speed limit.

On the older hand, if you travel at 101km/h you are a rabid, child-hating murderer because you will kill in a vehicle accident.

Now most people realise through experience that this extreme position is patently false. Even worse, it obscures the fact that driving at any speed is a risky activity and that it is still possible to kill at lower speeds. So the whole message about excessive speed, or speed inappropriate for the conditions is lost in the hyperbole.

I actually thought the LTSA was heading in the right direction with the "braking advert" as it wasn't over-emotive, and demonstrated the physical reality of travelling faster (not necessarily "speeding"). But then they blew it with the latest campaign it seems to me.

spudchucka
3rd June 2004, 22:59
Unfortunately this is not what the current road safety ads are telling us!

They say that if you travel at 99km/h you are a virtuous family-loving zero-risk saint who will not kill anybody in a vehicle accident because you are obeying the speed limit.

On the older hand, if you travel at 101km/h you are a rabid, child-hating murderer because you will kill in a vehicle accident.

Now most people realise through experience that this extreme position is patently false. Even worse, it obscures the fact that driving at any speed is a risky activity and that it is still possible to kill at lower speeds. So the whole message about excessive speed, or speed inappropriate for the conditions is lost in the hyperbole.

I actually thought the LTSA was heading in the right direction with the "braking advert" as it wasn't over-emotive, and demonstrated the physical reality of travelling faster (not necessarily "speeding"). But then they blew it with the latest campaign it seems to me.
The LTSA ads are lame and don't give the right message - no arguement from me. However if kiwis still possess common sense like they used to we would be able to see that these are just the creations of some dickhead advertising goon but still use our common sense on the road. Just because the ads are crap doesn't mean the message is crap or wrong.

As for the ads my personal favourite was the "don't worry be happy" one. I've never seen the rabid dog one that everyone goes on about.

James Deuce
3rd June 2004, 22:59
What annoys me is that the other day I see on the news a guy being put away for ten years after killing one of his mates, not for the first time, while drunk and yet he had previously caused death through this and had soo many convictions.

The media labelled him as New Zealands most dangerous person on the road. My question...why was he ever allowed back behind the wheel?? He was a repeat offender had practically murdered his mate previously but was allowed to do it again.

And, I may be wrong, but i still think he hasn't been permenantly barred from driving, maybe for a few years but people like this should never be able to operate a deadly weapon ever again!

How do you stop someone from driving a vehicle? Not everyone respects the license requirement, and you don't have to have a license to buy a car.

The dude that removed my brother-in-law's right arm and leg was an unlicensed driver due to a previous DIC, a known drug dealer, and had just got out of jail. He was pissed at the time of the accident. He lost an eye in the subsequent roll-over and crash into a paddock, he's been on an invalid's benefit since then. Not only was he driving another vehicle soon after he managed to get himself on national telly to present "his side" of the story the week after TV3 made my brother-in-law look like a gun-toting redneck ex-bike riding hoon.

This dude had killed someone previously while DIC. He really felt banned from driving didn't he? These are the sort of people for whom a fine holds no power because they claim poverty but have a bloody good income from their weed plantation. They don't care about anything except themselves, and prison is just a great way to make contacts.

Does anyone have a sensible answer? Right now I doubt it. A Judge can only use the tools that he has been given by the Judicial system, and at the moment an incident on the road is still viewed as an accident. It is bloody difficult to get a manslaughter charge to stick, and the only murder judgement you could gain in relation to a vehicle "accident" is in a civil case after the initial court proceedings.

Try to think about this from every viewpoint. There is a ton of emotion on every side. The justice system isn't about validating those emotions, it is about applying whatever punishment society has decided is appropriate for a given act. Read Dr Bob's signature. As a society NZ is currently failing to even reach for the ideal of "Community". If you want change you need to commit to some sort of idelogical framewaork that is expressed in the political system of NZ. Whining at Spud achieves nothing except pissing someone off who probably like the rest of us is just after a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. Start thinking about who and how you will vote at the next election. Start canvasing your current MP to see how receptive they are to some of the views people express here. Try and figure out what you are willing to compromise on.

It all sounds like hard work. It should be. Kiwis take their lifestyle for granted and love to carp on about how terrible politicians are. You put them there. That might sound unpalatable, but everyone on this site who voted last election is directly responsible for the Government we have now. I can hear everyone going, "I didn't vote for them", very indignantly, but they way you voted and how you manipulated (or failed to) your MMP choices gave you the Government you have now.

You want the death penalty for recidivist drunk drivers who kill repeatedly? Find a political party that is willing to support that stance and find a way of getting them into Parliament.

Just Stop Winding Spud up. He's here for the bikes, not to be flogged about your personal hobby horse.

merv
4th June 2004, 07:57
As for the ads my personal favourite was the "don't worry be happy" one.

I know you've said that before too, but really I didn't like that ad at all because to me the message was no need to look where you are going, no need to worry about crashing, don't worry be happy, boompha, what the hell.

It seems liked positive affirmation for a negative behaviour with no message about taking care unlike the "Take another look at intersections" ads - which really did say take your time, double check before you proceed.

modalx
4th June 2004, 08:06
I don't need any evidence because as stated it is my BELIEF. I'm not trying to prove it to you or anyone else but I do believe it and I know it to be true because I am out there seeing for myself the results of cockheads who think they are indestructable. :bleh:

Oh, my mistake. I thought blind adherence to arbitrary beliefs was something we left behind in the renaissance some centuries ago. Apparently not - at least we cannot expect reason from our leaders or 'protectors'. We must rely on their subjective experience. Silly me.


That is typical of the attitude of the above mentioned so called indestructable cockheads.
How about a real comment? I should have expected just another arrogant throw away line - pathetic really.

James Deuce
4th June 2004, 08:06
I know you've said that before too, but really I didn't like that ad at all because to me the message was no need to look where you are going, no need to worry about crashing, don't worry be happy, boompha, what the hell.

It seems liked positive affirmation for a negative behaviour with no message about taking care unlike the "Take another look at intersections" ads - which really did say take your time, double check before you proceed.

That ad made my 3 year cry the first time saw it. He freaked when the bike got hit.

Deano
4th June 2004, 08:50
:Playnice:

The Police are simply carrying out their duties as instructed by the wizards in Wellington.Its the f/wit politicians and other Buerocrats(sp.) who are to blame for misguided policy enforcement.


Who saw Holmes last night (I don't usually watch the tosser but....), this guy was being harrassed by the Police for his personalised number plates
"H8 ACC", "H8 OSH" and "H8 IRD" - supposedly due to offensiveness. Now if you can give the Police the fingers without any recourse, (except maybe a clip round the ear) why can't this guy have freedom of speech on his number plate ? He possibly has some "hate" issues but at least he didn't have one saying "H8 COPS". I remember seeing a plate years ago on a blue RX7 in Wgtn "MOT SUX".
I didn't hear who laid the complaint but "Andy "Knackerhead" from LTSA was on the show endorsing the harrassment of the guy. How pathetic to waste Police time over a bloody number plate. Be interesting to see what the outcome is.



Does anyone have a sensible answer? Right now I doubt it. A Judge can only use the tools that he has been given by the Judicial system, and at the moment an incident on the road is still viewed as an accident. It is bloody difficult to get a manslaughter charge to stick, and the only murder judgement you could gain in relation to a vehicle "accident" is in a civil case after the initial court proceedings.


Someone at work suggested the New York (I think) policy of 3 strikes and you're out. These guys with 22+ DIC etc would have been long gone. But then we would probably need more jails....ah just bring back public stonings - the Govt could charge admission and make even more money.

Deano
4th June 2004, 08:55
BTW - the last speeding ticket I got (only 5 months to go then Im clean - yay), was for 136km/h overtaking some cars at bottom of Taka's. The cop said he only ticketed me cos I had the missus on the back (just as well or I prob would have been going quicker - (good old handbrake, ball and chain etc). Does that mean he didn't care about me hurting myself or possibly other road users, just my missus???

He clocked me at that speed just going out of laser range, and then I was "goneburger" (his words - lol).

riffer
4th June 2004, 09:06
That ad made my 3 year cry the first time saw it. He freaked when the bike got hit.
Interesting. Tim, my four-year-old, loves the ad, especially when the biker drops the bike.

In fact when he first saw it, he turned around to me and said, "Dad if he just did a stoppie he wouldn't have hit that car!" :niceone:

Deano
4th June 2004, 09:15
Interesting. Tim, my four-year-old, loves the ad, especially when the biker drops the bike.

In fact when he first saw it, he turned around to me and said, "Dad if he just did a stoppie he wouldn't have hit that car!" :niceone:

Tim sounds like a dude and a future KBer in the making :headbang:

BTW - how's the fork seals holding up ? Good enough to show Tim a few stoppies of your own ?

vifferman
4th June 2004, 10:15
Start thinking about who and how you will vote at the next election. Start canvasing your current MP to see how receptive they are to some of the views people express here. Try and figure out what you are willing to compromise on..... etc etc...
That's all very well, but we have a parliamentary system that has effectively engineered itself over the years to be distanced from the very people it is supposed to be serving. The MPs act like they got into parliament because they are so wonderful, not because people elected them there to be civil servants serving the people.
To achieve any change is very difficult, to the point of being impossible. Isn't it true that a petition needs > 200k signatures to be brought up in the house, and even then, there's absolutely no guarantee that it will result in anything further happening? And that if you make submissions to a bill before a select committee, they have to be considered, but may then merely be vetoed and ignored?
Furthermore, it is very obvious that regardless of what is happening in the Beehive, the country is really run by a bunch of anonymous, grey-faced, grey-suited career bureaucrats 'behind the scenes'.

James Deuce
4th June 2004, 10:46
That's all very well, but we have a parliamentary system that has effectively engineered itself over the years to be distanced from the very people it is supposed to be serving. The MPs act like they got into parliament because they are so wonderful, not because people elected them there to be civil servants serving the people.
To achieve any change is very difficult, to the point of being impossible. Isn't it true that a petition needs > 200k signatures to be brought up in the house, and even then, there's absolutely no guarantee that it will result in anything further happening? And that if you make submissions to a bill before a select committee, they have to be considered, but may then merely be vetoed and ignored?
Furthermore, it is very obvious that regardless of what is happening in the Beehive, the country is really run by a bunch of anonymous, grey-faced, grey-suited career bureaucrats 'behind the scenes'.

Put nothing in and you'll get nothing out. That's a typical Kiwi attitude to politics. They've already beaten me so why bother?

Get stuck in mate - if you want things changed it has to start at the grass roots of a political party organisation. Don't like the type of person that typically ends up in Parliament? Make sure your local chapter of the political party that best represents your views selects a candidate that isn't a muppet. I live in Ohiro/Belmont electorate and end up with the detestable toadlike Peter Dunne as my MP election after election. The reason he gets voted in is because he actually works hard in the electorate to help voters out. A mate of mine owned the Gas Station at the bottom of Stokes Valley. Mobil demanded that he change tanks, he couldn't afford it so he closed shop. Mobil did him for breach of contract and Peter Dunne intervened and mediated for both parties. My mate got to keep his house and Mobil got a solution. Despite the fact that his politics are disgustingly elastic, Peter Dunne gives a crap and so gets back into Parliament all the time.

spudchucka
4th June 2004, 12:04
I know you've said that before too, but really I didn't like that ad at all because to me the message was no need to look where you are going, no need to worry about crashing, don't worry be happy, boompha, what the hell.

It seems liked positive affirmation for a negative behaviour with no message about taking care unlike the "Take another look at intersections" ads - which really did say take your time, double check before you proceed.
I take your point but this also highlights to me how tv ads can be interpreted in so many different ways. I saw it having a completely different message to the way you have described it.

spudchucka
4th June 2004, 12:10
QUOTE]

Oh, my mistake. I thought blind adherence to arbitrary beliefs was something we left behind in the renaissance some centuries ago.
Get stuffed. My beliefs are personal to me and are the net result of my own life experience.

Apparently not - at least we cannot expect reason from our leaders or 'protectors'. We must rely on their subjective experience. Silly me.
Hey man, if thats YOUR belief then you go right on believing it!

How about a real comment? I should have expected just another arrogant throw away line - pathetic really.
Want a real comment - what exactly would you like me to comment on?

spudchucka
4th June 2004, 12:12
That ad made my 3 year cry the first time saw it. He freaked when the bike got hit.
Playing it at a time a 3 year old is still up is irresponsible on the part of the broadcaster.

spudchucka
4th June 2004, 12:14
He possibly has some "hate" issues but at least he didn't have one saying "H8 COPS".
Bet he has got it now though!

Deano
4th June 2004, 12:19
Bet he has got it now though!

If so, it probably has, or will likely be rammed up his arse the next time he is pulled over. :doh:

Ghost Lemur
4th June 2004, 12:20
Playing it at a time a 3 year old is still up is irresponsible on the part of the broadcaster.

I hear ya, and a very good example of why I don't own a tv. My son's watch their movies on my computer, with occasional tv eps. All without advertising.

They don't need that sort of crap (of the mcD's ads etc) in their impressionable young minds.

James Deuce
4th June 2004, 12:28
Playing it at a time a 3 year old is still up is irresponsible on the part of the broadcaster.

The ad shows progressively more violent outcomes as the evening goes on. I think it was about 6:30. My 3 year old's main concern was that that could happen to me.

riffer
4th June 2004, 13:35
Tim sounds like a dude and a future KBer in the making :headbang:

BTW - how's the fork seals holding up ? Good enough to show Tim a few stoppies of your own ?
Pretty damn good fork seals, I must say - cheers WT.

However, with a 220kg bike, 95kg rider, and an IRC SP11 on the front, I must say in the recent road conditions stoppies are a bit dodgy.

I had to change the pads as the fork oil had gotten in to the calipers on the right side, so the brakes are really good at the moment.

The front tyre seems to skid before the back gets too high.

As for Tim, he has his eyes set on a PW50 for his 5th birthday in November. Gini's not too impressed but as his dad, uncle and both grandfathers are motorcyclists, she's pretty resigned to it.

I usually pull off a few mean stoppies for him on my Avanti mountainbike when we go riding. He likes to get his knee down "just like Rossi dad, aye!" whenever we go for bike rides together. No mean feat, seeing as the little bugger is still on training wheels - not for long though! :soon:

spudchucka
4th June 2004, 13:45
The ad shows progressively more violent outcomes as the evening goes on. I think it was about 6:30. My 3 year old's main concern was that that could happen to me.
That is a bit too much for a 3 year old to be thinking about but to be fair the ads are meant to make people think about the possible consequences.

Ghost Lemur
4th June 2004, 14:56
Pretty damn good fork seals, I must say - cheers WT.

However, with a 220kg bike, 95kg rider, and an IRC SP11 on the front, I must say in the recent road conditions stoppies are a bit dodgy.

I had to change the pads as the fork oil had gotten in to the calipers on the right side, so the brakes are really good at the moment.

The front tyre seems to skid before the back gets too high.

As for Tim, he has his eyes set on a PW50 for his 5th birthday in November. Gini's not too impressed but as his dad, uncle and both grandfathers are motorcyclists, she's pretty resigned to it.

I usually pull off a few mean stoppies for him on my Avanti mountainbike when we go riding. He likes to get his knee down "just like Rossi dad, aye!" whenever we go for bike rides together. No mean feat, seeing as the little bugger is still on training wheels - not for long though! :soon:


At this stage my "better half" isn't even keen on the our boys sitting on my bike stationary. The way she see's it is it'll go like this

Sit on bike --> Go for ride with dad ---> Dad buys minimoto each for boys ---> broken bones/hospital vists/excess motherly stress

She's probably right but I still don't see the problem. And no, the thought of me being able to play with their minimotos never crossed my mind. Honest. :killingme

On a serious (albeit offtopic) note, I would be more comfortable with them racing around on minimoto's on a track than riding their bicycles on the road. Less psychopathic cagers to contend with. Anyone else feel the same way?

spudchucka
4th June 2004, 15:00
On a serious (albeit offtopic) note, I would be more comfortable with them racing around on minimoto's on a track than riding their bicycles on the road. Less psychopathic cagers to contend with. Anyone else feel the same way?
Absolutley agree with you.

igor
4th June 2004, 15:57
anyone no where i can buy a P

modalx
4th June 2004, 17:03
QUOTE]

Get stuffed. My beliefs are personal to me and are the net result of my own life experience.?

Good for you - you can believe in the tooth fairy if you like - that does not make it true. When you ignore rational analysis in favour of a belief that is called delusion. You seem to be all about what you think, not about actually thinking. Oh well, its a good think no-one takes this seriously.

I'll be disappointed if you don't call me names some more. I love it when you talk dirty.

scumdog
4th June 2004, 17:18
Im picking that you are in the business of tax collecting as well, your attitude has already been expressed here by one of you colleuges :moon:
Quasievil, pray tell me how you would provide "incentive" to get people to stick to the speed limit, - apart from monetary of course!!
If speed doesn't kill why do bullets have to go so fast? (that wasn't "aimed" at you Quasievil!). :done:
Nope, never had to collect a tax in my life.

MD
4th June 2004, 17:22
That ad made my 3 year cry the first time saw it. He freaked when the bike got hit.
Same here. Cuts you to the core doesn't it when something upsets your Kids. One of my little girls gets upset everytime she sees that same scene with the bike crashing and asks me to "be careful Dad" Guess it gets their [LTSA]message home in a round about way. I realised my Girls were oblivious to the risks my riding involves until they saw that ad. I accept the risk of riding myself but that damn ad shakes me up because it reminds me its not just me who will suffer.
I'm anti the LTSA and Police HQ propaganda "speed is the root cause of all road evils" myself. So its interesting that the only ad that has any effect on me is that one where failure to give way was the cause, not speed. Shame this point is wasted on the LTSA and Police HQ.
We need to lay off Spud and co. for doing their job in, from the sounds of it, a reasonable manner.
Better still can Spud and Co. seek out out all their 'like minded work mates' (i.e. those that don't suffer from zero intolerance syndrome) and get them all to transfer to Wellington/Wairarapa asap
MD

Deano
4th June 2004, 17:51
It must be winter and we're suffering withdrawals from not getting enough (riding the bike that is) - the posts seem to be getting quite niggly and personal, and less tongue in cheek.

OFF TOPIC - modalx - I don't suppose you could attach a pic of your SP-3 to your profile so I can have a good drool ?

spudchucka
4th June 2004, 20:11
When you ignore rational analysis in favour of a belief that is called delusion. You seem to be all about what you think, not about actually thinking. Oh well, its a good think no-one takes this seriously.

I'll be disappointed if you don't call me names some more. I love it when you talk dirty.

Well if I thought you had presented a rational analysis in the first place I might take you more seriously. I'm still waiting for the stats you quoted in the first place.

By the way I didn't call you a name I told you to get stuffed. Still applies too.

Going back to some other shit you were spouting earlier:


First there is the implication that enforcing arbitrary speed limits reduces accidents

There is plenty of evidence to support this. Have a look at the info and links posted in the police stats thread. Come back with some evidence to support your claims.


Most accidents occur well below the posted limits. Speed may still be a contributing cause but if it was below the limit how would enforcing the limit have changed anything? Speed may also be a factor when the main cause is something else - like being drunk. There has been an orchestrated effort by the LTSA to misrepresent these facts and link speed limit enforcement to accident reduction.

You are just another person who is totally missing the point. Use your common sense for a few seconds - its about reducing trauma FFS. Speed is a major contributing factor in road deaths and trauma, whether speed caused the crash is irrelevant.

Crashes are not accidents. They happen for a reason, usually because some arogant arse refuses to accept that there are road rules for a very good reason or they are simply careless or dangerous drivers.


Secondly there is an implication that speeding and driving like an idiot is the same thing. If speeding means driving beyond your abilities, your machine or without regard for the conditions then this is absolutely true. You could do that at 5ks.

If the limit of a persons driving ability was 5km/h they should stick to riding a pushbike. You are obviously one of these people who think they are such a good driver that they should have their own special speed limit. Or is it that your car / bike is so well made and has some fancy safety gadget that it makes it safe for you to travel above the speed limit. What if you were speeding and had a crash with a car that had lesser safety features and a whole family in that car died while you walk away unharmed. Is it the other drivers fault they all died because their doesn't have the same safety standard as yours? An idiot is an idiot no matter what, a speeding idiot in a fancy car is just a dangerous idiot.


But usually "speeding" means exceeding some totally meaningless and unscientific velocity number that by itself and without regard to the myriad of other factors that add up to an accident, is just a joke.

Unscientific!! What the f**k are all those crash tests done on cars to see how they crumple in a crash for? Aren't they scientific enough for you? You imply that the speed limits have been plucked out of someones arse without any thought or reason for the said limit.

Has no one ever calculated the time and distance it takes to react, apply the brakes and come to stop in the event of an emergency. Of course they bloody have.

I don't give a shit if people flame me for this but you are talking the biggest load of crap I've ever read on this forum in relation to the speed limit and road crashes.

NordieBoy
4th June 2004, 20:45
anyone no where i can buy a P

No but have some vowels for free.

A E I O U

MikeL
4th June 2004, 21:04
anyone no where i can buy a P

It's a good thing you used the indefinite article, which at least made your question meaningless, rather than a fairly disturbing assumption about what you expect to find on this forum.

sAsLEX
4th June 2004, 21:51
Unscientific!! What the f**k are all those crash tests done on cars to see how they crumple in a crash for? Aren't they scientific enough for you? You imply that the speed limits have been plucked out of someones arse without any thought or reason for the said limit.

Has no one ever calculated the time and distance it takes to react, apply the brakes and come to stop in the event of an emergency. Of course they bloody have.

And on how many of our passing lanes can you actually pass a vehicle going at 90-95k noting that they speed up on these normally straight sections of road, my guess is about 1 in five.

how long has the current speed limit stood?? If it was based on science they would have to re-evaluate alot more often than that as all the contributing factors such as technolgy have changed therefor making your scientific yet archaic speed limit irrellavant!

denill
4th June 2004, 22:05
to issue 75,000 more speeding tickets in the next 12 months compared to the last 12!


What a stupid statement. It clearly shows the mindset of the law makers - as what happens when everyone has slowed down.
Are the cops going to write tickets to non law breaking drivers/riders - just to make their quota - and keep their boss off their backs ??

If the scenario does not pan exactly that way, there is a hell of a lot of encouragement for just that to happen........... :doh: :doh: :doh:

I have always thought there was a lot of sense in the saying - the law is an ass. Now 'they' have proved it !!!

Quasievil
5th June 2004, 10:48
Quasievil, pray tell me how you would provide "incentive" to get people to stick to the speed limit, - apart from monetary of course!!
If speed doesn't kill why do bullets have to go so fast? (that wasn't "aimed" at you Quasievil!). :done:
Nope, never had to collect a tax in my life.


its easy, demerit points, money doesnt have to be exchanged at all to enforce the road rules. I have 20 demerit points and 80 more I loose my licence that alone is a wake up for me, but no you have to pay cash as well, why ????
Speed doesnt kill, its the stop, Bullets dont kill unless someone shoots you ,its all about the operator and the condition,roads, cars,etc etc

sAsLEX
5th June 2004, 12:25
If speed doesn't kill why do bullets have to go so fast? (that wasn't "aimed" at you Quasievil!). :done:


Accuracy and range!

What is the speed limit on gravel?? Is it not alot more dangerous to travel at speed on metal, and yet how many hp do you see trolling the litlle traveled roads in search of prey?

Quasievil
5th June 2004, 12:35
Accuracy and range!

What is the speed limit on gravel?? Is it not alot more dangerous to travel at speed on metal, and yet how many hp do you see trolling the litlle traveled roads in search of prey?

The speed limit on gravel is as posted BUT, you have to be able to stop in HALF the visible road ahead of you.

Coming down for a ride Bro, forget that study Shite :msn-wink:

sAsLEX
5th June 2004, 12:52
sorry but cant afford the wraith that will ensue if I happen to fail a paper, mind you in the three week break I will have plenty of time!

maybe
5th June 2004, 14:27
Labour promised no new taxes so they have to take our money some how. :killingme

Lou Girardin
5th June 2004, 15:53
Which is it Spud? Inappropriate speed or exceeding the speed limit that's the danger?
You know as well as I do that they're very different things.
The LTSA seems confused too
Inapproriate speed causes many accidents, but it's not a great revenue earner.
Don't forget too, that the road toll has been falling since they raised the limit from 80 to 100 km/h.

PS. I think the cops on the Holmes story took exception to the H8 IRD plate.

sAsLEX
5th June 2004, 16:02
Don't forget too, that the road toll has been falling since they raised the limit from 80 to 100 km/h.

.

Happens in alot of places that, raising the road toll where appropriate. waiakato expressway/revenue lane *cough*

Hitcher
5th June 2004, 17:06
anyone no where i can buy a P

Sk8r_boi has got one in his gargre

Bfocus8
5th June 2004, 17:08
NZ polices are the most stupid ones i ever seen, they only know how to write tickets. Awaste of our taxation. Driving big fat Holden running around. dont make any sense to crime and safety of community.

Indo
5th June 2004, 17:35
You are just another person who is totally missing the point. Use your common sense for a few seconds - its about reducing trauma FFS. Speed is a major contributing factor in road deaths and trauma, whether speed caused the crash is irrelevant.



Best point in this entire thread. Strange how this simple logic just seems to fly over some peoples head. The faster you go the higher the probability of you having a serious accident, its a fact, its not LTSA propaganda. Use your brain. You have a higher chance of losing control the faster you go and you have a higher chance of being unable to avoid other idiots/hazards on the road. The faster you go the greater the forces involved in the collision, hence the greater the damage caused to both people and vehicles. You look at a crash involving speeds of 120+ and compare it to one at 100km and tell me this isn't true. Speed doesn't necessarily always cause the crash but it makes it unavoidable.


Which is it Spud? Inappropriate speed or exceeding the speed limit that's the danger?.

Surely you can see the problem with this? Do you want them to take away speed limits and let everyone drive at a speed which they think is appropriate? Lots of people here might be able to do this within reason, but do you really trust the general driving public that much?

What kind of speed do you think some little 18 year old boyracer with his mates in the car is going to think is safe for the conditions?

Yeh it would be nice if Cops could instantly divine who is safe to travel at 110+ and who isn't. It would be nice if we all had our personal speed limit according to our abilities. Unfortunately thou you have to have one law for all and a set limit that applies for everyone.

marty
5th June 2004, 17:37
Commentary around the higher road toll


More cars travelling more kilometres are causing more crashes on New Zealand roads.
LTSA traffic surveys show the total number of vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) on New Zealand roads has increased by 7.5% since 2001, when the last surveys were carried out. Petrol deliveries increased by 8% in the 12 months to June 2003, suggesting that much of the increase in VKT has occurred in the most recent year.
The number of vehicle kilometres travelled on non-motorway open roads is up even more dramatically, by 15% this year from 2001. About three-quarters of all fatal crashes occur on open roads.
An analysis of crashes this year shows that drink driving has contributed to 28% of fatal crashes and excessive speed to 34%. Nearly 30% of the 441 people killed this year have not been wearing seatbelts.
New Zealand’s road fatality rate has come down 50 percent since 1990, in spite of significant increases in population, on-road vehicles and kilometres driven.

marty
5th June 2004, 17:49
NZ polices are the most stupid ones i ever seen, they only know how to write tickets. Awaste of our taxation. Driving big fat Holden running around. dont make any sense to crime and safety of community.
It all comes back to the lowest common denominator, and here is a classic example.

Two Smoker
6th June 2004, 13:31
I agree with Indo, if you get caught speeding, the cop is doing his/her job correctly..... How does he/she know when someone is travelling at 110+kmh that that driver is capable of travelling safely at that speed? it is impossible, unless they know that person....


I also agree that increasing the amount of tickets by 75000 is a load of shit..... that is putting undue strain on the police and thus on the public, due to having to watch their speed consistently instead of looking for hazards, and also wondering where the money will come from to pay for the ticket....

Modalax, take a bit of a chill pill, Spud has taken the time to show us his point of view (from the eyes of the law on the beat, not the officers stuck in offices) therefore he has the experience to know what he is talking about......

I also have the experience of receiving tickets...... ive had no problems with getting them at all.....

spudchucka
6th June 2004, 16:44
And on how many of our passing lanes can you actually pass a vehicle going at 90-95k noting that they speed up on these normally straight sections of road, my guess is about 1 in five.

how long has the current speed limit stood?? If it was based on science they would have to re-evaluate alot more often than that as all the contributing factors such as technolgy have changed therefor making your scientific yet archaic speed limit irrellavant!
Technology hasn't made that much of a difference. The current speed limit was introduced some time in the 1980's, don't remember the exact year. Prior to that it was 80kph.

Your first comment is to do with driver behaviour / attitude and has nothing to do with any posted speed limit.

spudchucka
6th June 2004, 16:47
What a stupid statement. It clearly shows the mindset of the law makers - as what happens when everyone has slowed down.
Are the cops going to write tickets to non law breaking drivers/riders - just to make their quota - and keep their boss off their backs ??
Hmmm, just start making offences up and lying your ass off in Court in order to fulfill a bullshit quota. Not in my world pal!

spudchucka
6th June 2004, 16:55
Which is it Spud? Inappropriate speed or exceeding the speed limit that's the danger?
Both. Its too subjective to say one is dangerous and the other isn't. Inappropriate speed can cause a crash however speed in general is a major contributing factor in regards to trauma. I'm not saying higher speeds are inherently causing more crashes. I'm saying that in the event of a crash speed is a trauma promoting factor. Thats why we have a speed limilt and thats why it is enforced.

spudchucka
6th June 2004, 16:56
Happens in alot of places that, raising the road toll where appropriate. waiakato expressway/revenue lane *cough*
Raising the road toll where appropriate?? I don't think that came out the way you meant it??

spudchucka
6th June 2004, 17:02
[QUOTE=spudchucka]The camera black spots are a joke because people just slow down for a short period of time and then continue to break the speed limit.

Ummmmmmmmm.......... I thought that was the idea.
To slow people down in the blackspot, and so reduce the chances of it continuing to be a blackspot.
By implication, it means that the areas outside the blackspot are not a problem statistically, and so do not need special attention.
The desired effect is to slow people down in general, not just in specific sites. If you fix one black spot by policing it hard, whats to say that another black spot won't naturally occurr in another place that is not receiving the same attention?

Milky
6th June 2004, 17:31
Hmmm, just start making offences up and lying your ass off in Court in order to fulfill a bullshit quota. Not in my world pal!

wasnt there a case of this years ago, when some cops got reprimanded for faking tickets? AFAIK they had recorded one speed on the radar then used that to ticket a large number of people... needless to say someone saw a pattern and the offenders were found out. Not saying it still happens, or that it is endemic, but it has happened before... :mellow:

MD
6th June 2004, 17:48
wasnt there a case of this years ago, when some cops got reprimanded for faking tickets? AFAIK they had recorded one speed on the radar then used that to ticket a large number of people... needless to say someone saw a pattern and the offenders were found out. Not saying it still happens, or that it is endemic, but it has happened before... :mellow:
I've wondered about this myself. I've always taken my tickets with a smile and accepted the fine and wouldn't bother disputing the speed if I genuinely knew I was speeding. But what if an unscrupulous HP with a grudge against the whole damn world or whatever pings one speedster and then books the next 5 cars off the same reading? Its already been stated on another thread that HP don't have to show you the read out. Can those in the business shed some light on this? Is there a time stamp on the readings. Even then its his word against yours on the time elapsed.

spudchucka
6th June 2004, 18:59
I also agree that increasing the amount of tickets by 75000 is a load of shit..... that is putting undue strain on the police and thus on the public, due to having to watch their speed consistently instead of looking for hazards, and also wondering where the money will come from to pay for the ticket.....
I don't know how they expect to get those extra speeding tickets because where I work in the last 2 - 3 years it has become increasingly harder to find people speeding. My own personal assessment, from what I see every day is that most people sit around 55 - 58 kph in town. I don't spend a lot of time in 100kph areas but when I do I see people by and large sticking to around 98 - 105kph.

Fair enough if they intend to introduce harder policing of intersections etc because there are heaps of poor driving habits displayed at intersections, (some people here have even suggested this should be done). Any way if that is the intention I would support it wholeheartedly.

spudchucka
6th June 2004, 19:04
wasnt there a case of this years ago, when some cops got reprimanded for faking tickets? AFAIK they had recorded one speed on the radar then used that to ticket a large number of people... needless to say someone saw a pattern and the offenders were found out. Not saying it still happens, or that it is endemic, but it has happened before... :mellow:
I'm not familiar with the incident you speak so I won't say it never happened because I don't know. There are checks and ballances in place to prevent this sort of stuff happening however.

spudchucka
6th June 2004, 19:06
NZ polices are the most stupid ones i ever seen, they only know how to write tickets. Awaste of our taxation. Driving big fat Holden running around. dont make any sense to crime and safety of community.
I was trying to think of a suitable rsponse to this but really it just isn't worth the effort.

spudchucka
6th June 2004, 19:12
I've wondered about this myself. I've always taken my tickets with a smile and accepted the fine and wouldn't bother disputing the speed if I genuinely knew I was speeding. But what if an unscrupulous HP with a grudge against the whole damn world or whatever pings one speedster and then books the next 5 cars off the same reading? Its already been stated on another thread that HP don't have to show you the read out. Can those in the business shed some light on this? Is there a time stamp on the readings. Even then its his word against yours on the time elapsed.

It is considered "best practice" to lock the speed and offer the offending driver the opportunity to see the readout. However this is not a requirement, all the officer needs to do is see the readout and visually identify the offending vehilce. The in-car radars have a hand held remote that allows the operator to transmit, hold and lock / release readings on the radar, they are completely idiot proof to operate.

The practice you describe would fall squarely into the realms of police coruption. Any officer exposed doing this would be in more shit than Ned Kelly!! It just isn't worth it. Sure there will always be some who are corrupt and play dirty but in todays police environment they get weeded out pretty quickly.

MikeL
6th June 2004, 21:15
The practice you describe would fall squarely into the realms of police coruption. Any officer exposed doing this would be in more shit than Ned Kelly!! It just isn't worth it. Sure there will always be some who are corrupt and play dirty but in todays police environment they get weeded out pretty quickly.

Having travelled extensively and lived overseas in countries where police corruption (as well as brutality) is endemic, I have always felt pride on returning to N.Z. in the relative integrity of our police force. In recent years I feel that this integrity has been dented somewhat through some well-publicised revelations which have made me wonder whether my faith was misplaced. The difficulty for a layman is to know whether a few high-profile cases (or anecdotal evidence for that matter) represent just the tip of the iceberg, or the whole iceberg. I'm prepared to give the police the benefit of the doubt, but what I would like to know, Spud, is what makes you so confident that the rotten ones get weeded out quickly.

Milky
6th June 2004, 21:19
Fair enough if they intend to introduce harder policing of intersections etc because there are heaps of poor driving habits displayed at intersections, (some people here have even suggested this should be done). Any way if that is the intention I would support it wholeheartedly.

I agree in that the main cause of crashes in Akl (from my point of view - being a commuter during the week) seems to be people following too dammed close, not driving to the conditions or taking their eyes off the road. Dont get me started on red light runners, non stoppers at stop signs, people failing to give way etc... If urban traffic policing is primarily about ensuring traffic flow and safety of motorists, then this is where the emphasis needs to be placed. Granted there are other times and places where speed is a much greater factor in crashes, so the balance should be shifted for those areas that need it more.

In town it pisses me off to have cop cars tailgate me in the hope that I will pull out a gap and exceed the speed limit by doing so... It isn't where the enforcement should be placed, and this method is definitely not going to win friends for the police :2guns:

This is purely based on what I observe as a commuter, so feel free to correct my perceptions on police resource appropriation or spread of tickets :spudwhat:

KATWYN
6th June 2004, 21:31
I don't know how they expect to get those extra speeding tickets because where I work in the last 2 - 3 years it has become increasingly harder to find people speeding. My own personal assessment, from what I see every day is that most people sit around 55 - 58 kph in town. I don't spend a lot of time in 100kph areas but when I do I see people by and large sticking to around 98 - 105kph.

Fair enough if they intend to introduce harder policing of intersections etc because there are heaps of poor driving habits displayed at intersections, (some people here have even suggested this should be done). Any way if that is the intention I would support it wholeheartedly.


Sometimes, I find myself looking at the speedometer too often to maintain the speed limit im doing cos it is so easy to exceed it (especially around 50km areas) - my thoughts are, that if everyone is doing this, they are not looking where they should be...at the road... or what is happening around them...and I think that now speed fines etc are being stepped up, this is going to become a serious issue which may start causing more accidents (people looking at speedo's more than the road - its pretty hard to keep within 10km without looking regulary at the vehicle speedo)

I know when I look at the speedometer, there is "a split second" situation where i'm not watching the road...

What I noticed one day going into Orewa recently, was a large lit up sign that was showing the speed of incoming drivers, so they could gauge their speed without looking at their speedo, that was a really good idea.

modalx
6th June 2004, 22:48
The point I am trying to make, though it appears I have not done very well, is that we should be thinking a lot more about the way we police speed. The hostile, defensive reaction that comes from the establishment (yes spud, thats you) when someone suggests something different is amazing if predictable. I have been deliberately provocative because it irritates me to hear the same oversimplistic dogma spouted again and again. The standard reaction to any suggestion the status quo might not be the best thing, seems to be to immediately call the detractor an anti-social maniac with homicidal tendancies. Or a cockhead (check back spud - Alzheimers?)

To be clear, what I am suggesting is the kind of "Reasonable and Prudent" approach that worked in Montana and is working in Germany, or at the very least, increased tolerance in appropriate circumstances.

Spud is sure that there is evidence that policing the limit reduces accidents - not so. Check out LTSAs own data.
Injury accidents have gone up from 194 per 100,000 to 234 per 100,000 people since 2000
The LTSA often uses stats per 100,000 vehicles and they generally look good - why ? because the country is being flooded with imported cars many of which don't kill people because they are parked up somewhere as a second car.

Fatal accidents have reduced but the trend has been very steadily downward since 1970 and so quite likely nothing to do with policing speed but better roads, better cars and very importantly better medicine. We are far better at salvaging badly damaged people than we were say 6 years ago.

Before spud jumps to conclusions again, I am not saying speed is irrelevant. These are just a couple of examples of the way we are misled by stats and how dangerous it is to assume our own experience is anything more than that.

I am also suggesting that the 100kph limit has indeed been plucked out of the air and has absolutely no validity. The magic number is only 100 because of history and what road users will accept. Spud brought up the crash tests done on cars as some kind of evidence. Standard offset frontal crash tests are done at 40mph and at that speed the crush zone is right to the windscreen and the engine is under the car. The same test at 100kph would result in total destruction of the vehicle and very likely the occupants too. So these tests would suggest a 40mph limit is too high. Such a high proportion of motorcyclists die in crashes at 100kph that a higher limit is probably irrelevant in terms of fatality after a crash.

What you do have at 100 compared to 120 is more time. At least theoretically. In fact, a huge number of other factors affect the time you have including, importantly, your state of alertness. You can halve your reaction time by being alert. The Montana study has some interesting conclusions about how taking more responsibility for your speed (ie not robotically sticking to an artificial limit) improves your alertness.

As for the injury reduction argument - of course it is true that the slower you go the smaller the mess. If we all travelled at 50kph there would be fewer injuries but is that really helpful? It is certainly no argument for a 100kph limit in view of the fact that even with a seatbelt and airbag, it's almost impossible to survive a direct collision with a fixed object or slow-moving vehicle if you're going 100kph.

So the issue is about deciding the level of risk we are willing to accept.

The problem is that we are jumping straight to a very imperfect solution with a blanket speed limit. It seems to me self evident that speed is NEVER the only cause of a crash. There are ALWAYS other factors and this means that a rigidly enforced speed limit is hopelessly flawed. But it is a nice simple rule and people do like to oversimplify things so they don't have to think much. It is also easy to police. Thus we get the line up of HP along Karapiro where the engineering, visibilty, run-off and so on makes for low risk driving and people tend to go a bit over the limit.

Travelling above 100kph in these situations would not substantially increase the TOTAL RISK of a crash. Yes it would increase the risk of dying in the crash but we have already accepted a level of risk is inevitable and you are pretty much buggered at 100 anyway. The increased risk of dying is offset by the low risk of having a crash in the first place. This is why we accept air travel. You will definitely die if you crash at 700kph but the risk is finite and small.

As much as some people would like this issue to be black and white it is not. The current drive towards tighter enforcement of the 100kph limit is not rational and will result in many more fines, much more public anger and minimal change in behaviour and even less in the desired outcomes. I think we should be bold, do what Montana did and decide on some indicators for Reasonable and Prudent speed. But I'm a realist and know lots of people are not ready for that much trust so would settle for plenty of tolerance.

Good god that was a mission. For anybody still reading, I apologise :wacko:

scumdog
7th June 2004, 00:46
Part of the reason for the rise in injuries is that until the last few years most minor injuries were never reported, (probably 'cause it saved the cops time/paper work!) the desk-jockey types realised that if more injuries were reported the rise in injuries would be met with more money from ACC to prevent said injuries.
Whatever the speed limit there would still be people that would drive faster than the limit, like a lot of the others I would have no problem with getting a speed ticket - had one in my life and paid up. (Didn't with the one I got in Canada and now I'm a fugitive from the law, a desperado! :eek: )

If I can keep to the speed limit and/or dodge the "revenue gatherers" as much as I have over the last 35 years then hopefully most of the rest of you can eh? :niceone:

scumdog
7th June 2004, 00:50
NZ polices are the most stupid ones i ever seen, they only know how to write tickets. Awaste of our taxation. Driving big fat Holden running around. dont make any sense to crime and safety of community.
Go back to school, you are in dire need of an education!!!!!!!!!!
(Reminds me of that expression "depriving a village somewhere of its idiot")

madandy
7th June 2004, 09:24
My 1997 Primera can stop from 120km/h in less distance than my first car, a 1982 Mitsubishi Sigma could from 100km/h.I know my RF will haul up much better than my old GS650 Katana ever did.
Tyre improvements increase control and also reduce lock-up potential not to mention ABS and advances in the all important suspension.

Technology has made a difference...on paper.

Statistics (and perhaps Police training) are being manipulated to suit the attitude that driver education is too expensive...so slow down... :brick:

denill
7th June 2004, 09:29
Good god that was a mission. For anybody still reading, I apologise

Nah, don't apologise. Just get a decision making job with the LTSA.

They :Police: could do with a dose of objective assessment. :niceone: :niceone:

Milky
7th June 2004, 15:24
wow... that took a while to read :p much like what I was trying to get across but with me being inarticulate and lazy, mine never came out as that :msn-wink:
However I would like to add that the problem with speed limits is that they dont take into account the changing road conditions. As you say

"...Thus we get the line up of HP along Karapiro where the engineering, visibilty, run-off and so on makes for low risk driving and people tend to go a bit over the limit..."

Would anyone here even consider doing the same speed (100 to 110) on the old arthurs pass road, twilight road etc??? it is still legal, but by far the more dangerous one of the two, and much more likely to lead to an injury or death. Seems we will just have to live with the regulations, and take those annoying 111kmh tickets on the chin...:disapint:

sAsLEX
7th June 2004, 16:23
Good god that was a mission. For anybody still reading, I apologise :wacko:

Well put, no need to apologise

spudchucka
7th June 2004, 21:24
I'm prepared to give the police the benefit of the doubt, but what I would like to know, Spud, is what makes you so confident that the rotten ones get weeded out quickly.
The police hierachy want to be seen as being cleaner than clean. Any practice by members of police that involves dishonhesty is taken extremely seriously. Making up traffic offences puts the cop in a position where he / she has to be prepared to commit purgery. As a cop you never want to put yourself in a position where you would have to lie in Court as this would be the ultimate disgrace and the end of your career.

spudchucka
7th June 2004, 21:27
I agree in that the main cause of crashes in Akl (from my point of view - being a commuter during the week) seems to be people following too dammed close, not driving to the conditions or taking their eyes off the road. Dont get me started on red light runners, non stoppers at stop signs, people failing to give way etc... If urban traffic policing is primarily about ensuring traffic flow and safety of motorists, then this is where the emphasis needs to be placed. Granted there are other times and places where speed is a much greater factor in crashes, so the balance should be shifted for those areas that need it more.

In town it pisses me off to have cop cars tailgate me in the hope that I will pull out a gap and exceed the speed limit by doing so... It isn't where the enforcement should be placed, and this method is definitely not going to win friends for the police :2guns:

This is purely based on what I observe as a commuter, so feel free to correct my perceptions on police resource appropriation or spread of tickets :spudwhat:
I agree that other areas require harder policing as you describe. However it will always be appropriate to police speed as well because, as stated many times over, it is a trauma promoting factor in crashes.

spudchucka
7th June 2004, 21:31
Sometimes, I find myself looking at the speedometer too often to maintain the speed limit im doing cos it is so easy to exceed it (especially around 50km areas) - my thoughts are, that if everyone is doing this, they are not looking where they should be...at the road... or what is happening around them...and I think that now speed fines etc are being stepped up, this is going to become a serious issue which may start causing more accidents (people looking at speedo's more than the road - its pretty hard to keep within 10km without looking regulary at the vehicle speedo)

I know when I look at the speedometer, there is "a split second" situation where i'm not watching the road...

What I noticed one day going into Orewa recently, was a large lit up sign that was showing the speed of incoming drivers, so they could gauge their speed without looking at their speedo, that was a really good idea.
I'm not having a go at you and I know as well it can be difficult to keep sports bikes at the 50kph speed limit but being able to maintain a constant speed without continually looking at the speedo is a pretty basic skill. Personally I can tell my speed pretty much bang on by the pitch of the engine, the sound of my tyres etc and don't need to more than glance at the speedo occasionally.

KATWYN
7th June 2004, 21:35
I'm not having a go at you and I know as well it can be difficult to keep sports bikes at the 50kph speed limit but being able to maintain a constant speed without continually looking at the speedo is a pretty basic skill. Personally I can tell my speed pretty much bang on by the pitch of the engine, the sound of my tyres etc and don't need to more than glance at the speedo occasionally.

No offense taken. I would have to agree with you on that if I'm on the bike. I shouldve mentioned that I was speaking about when im driving the car, I dont find it easy.

spudchucka
7th June 2004, 22:01
I have been deliberately provocative because it irritates me to hear the same oversimplistic dogma spouted again and again.
Sorry but you didn't present anything other than the same oversimplistic dogma that is spouted by the section of society that habitually speeds as if it is their right to do so.


Or a cockhead (check back spud - Alzheimers?)
Ohh, did you think that was directed at you?


Spud is sure that there is evidence that policing the limit reduces accidents - not so. Check out LTSAs own data.
Injury accidents have gone up from 194 per 100,000 to 234 per 100,000 people since 2000
The LTSA often uses stats per 100,000 vehicles and they generally look good - why ? because the country is being flooded with imported cars many of which don't kill people because they are parked up somewhere as a second car.
Read back again mate. I have said that policing the speed limit has an impact on trauma suffered in due to crashes. This is supported by the declining road toll despite the increase in the number of vehicles on the road.


Fatal accidents have reduced but the trend has been very steadily downward since 1970 and so quite likely nothing to do with policing speed but better roads, better cars and very importantly better medicine. We are far better at salvaging badly damaged people than we were say 6 years ago.
All true but none of that changes the fact that speed and crashes promote injury.


The same test at 100kph would result in total destruction of the vehicle and very likely the occupants too. So these tests would suggest a 40mph limit is too high. Such a high proportion of motorcyclists die in crashes at 100kph that a higher limit is probably irrelevant in terms of fatality after a crash.
Not so. Many 100 kph crashes are survived. When the crash speed increases to 120 the severity of the impact is increased by a factor of 4. (from memory ok, I'll have to check research but that is as I recall).


What you do have at 100 compared to 120 is more time.
And that can save lives!


In fact, a huge number of other factors affect the time you have including, importantly, your state of alertness. You can halve your reaction time by being alert.
True but the law can't legislate or test for peoples state of alertness each time the elect to drive.


It is certainly no argument for a 100kph limit in view of the fact that even with a seatbelt and airbag, it's almost impossible to survive a direct collision with a fixed object or slow-moving vehicle if you're going 100kph.
This is rubbish!


So the issue is about deciding the level of risk we are willing to accept.
Personally or as a society?


There are ALWAYS other factors and this means that a rigidly enforced speed limit is hopelessly flawed
Its about trauma reduction, not just crash reduction!


Yes it would increase the risk of dying in the crash but we have already accepted a level of risk is inevitable and you are pretty much buggered at 100 anyway.
"If I crash at 100 kph I will die and so will anyone else that is involved in the crash, therefore I will travel at what ever speed I like as it will make no difference to the outcome". This is some seriously arogant, ignorant and warpped logic.


As much as some people would like this issue to be black and white it is not. The current drive towards tighter enforcement of the 100kph limit is not rational and will result in many more fines, much more public anger and minimal change in behaviour and even less in the desired outcomes. I think we should be bold, do what Montana did and decide on some indicators for Reasonable and Prudent speed. But I'm a realist and know lots of people are not ready for that much trust so would settle for plenty of tolerance.
I'm not closed to new ideas at all and I don't believe the police are either, the LTSA may be another matter though. As far as trauma reduction goes it is a black and white arguement. New Zealand drivers have proven themselves many times over to be incapable of being responsible enough drivers to be left to their own devices and I'm afraid that it is attitudes like the ones you have displayed that are largely to blame.

wkid_one
7th June 2004, 22:03
Sorry but you didn't present anything other than the same oversimplistic dogma that is spouted by the section of society that habitually speeds as if it is their right to do so.


Ohh, did you think that was directed at you?


Read back again mate. I have said that policing the speed limit has an impact on trauma suffered in due to crashes. This is supported by the declining road toll despite the increase in the number of vehicles on the road.


All true but none of that changes the fact that speed and crashes promote injury.


Not so. Many 100 kph crashes are survived. When the crash speed increases to 120 the severity of the impact is increased by a factor of 4. (from memory ok, I'll have to check research but that is as I recall).


And that can save lives!


True but the law can't legislate or test for peoples state of alertness each time the elect to drive.


This is rubbish!


Personally or as a society?


Its about trauma reduction, not just crash reduction!


"If I crash at 100 kph I will die and so will anyone else that is involved in the crash, therefore I will travel at what ever speed I like as it will make no difference to the outcome". This is some seriously arogant, ignorant and warpped logic.


I'm not closed to new ideas at all and I don't believe the police are either, the LTSA may be another matter though. As far as trauma reduction goes it is a black and white arguement. New Zealand drivers have proven themselves many times over to be incapable of being responsible enough drivers to be left to their own devices and I'm afraid that it is attitudes like the ones you have displayed that are largely to blame.
Well fuck me if that reply wouldn't have taken ages to do

spudchucka
8th June 2004, 05:25
Spud is sure that there is evidence that policing the limit reduces accidents - not so. Check out LTSAs own data.
Injury accidents have gone up from 194 per 100,000 to 234 per 100,000 people since 2000
The LTSA often uses stats per 100,000 vehicles and they generally look good - why ? because the country is being flooded with imported cars many of which don't kill people because they are parked up somewhere as a second car.
Some light reading for you.

http://www.acc.org.nz/acc-publications/pdfs/ip/acc672-down-with-speed.pdf

http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/publications/docs/sdwp3.pdf

madandy
8th June 2004, 05:37
I'm not closed to new ideas at all and I don't believe the police are either, the LTSA may be another matter though. As far as trauma reduction goes it is a black and white arguement. New Zealand drivers have proven themselves many times over to be incapable of being responsible enough drivers to be left to their own devices and I'm afraid that it is attitudes like the ones you have displayed that are largely to blame.


New Zealand drivers in general? I think thats the attitude that pisses some people off - The Gov't and LTSA can't be bothered differentiating between the responsible and irresponsible.Once again it must be too hard or too expensive.

spudchucka
8th June 2004, 05:51
New Zealand drivers in general? I think thats the attitude that pisses some people off - The Gov't and LTSA can't be bothered differentiating between the responsible and irresponsible.Once again it must be too hard or too expensive.
Or simply not practicle.

spudchucka
8th June 2004, 06:14
I don't know how they expect to get those extra speeding tickets because where I work in the last 2 - 3 years it has become increasingly harder to find people speeding. My own personal assessment, from what I see every day is that most people sit around 55 - 58 kph in town. I don't spend a lot of time in 100kph areas but when I do I see people by and large sticking to around 98 - 105kph.
Sadly I might have to retract this statement after yesterdays effort.

Sum total for the day:
8 drivers warned for speed up to 64kph

10 x speeding tickets ranging from 65 - 88 kph. One was a biker snatched at 87. Another a middle aged female caught at 88kph overtaking in a residential area and then ran a red light trying to evade police. Another was a woman aged about 65 nabbed at 76kph.

One idiot riding a clapped out scooter without a helmet.

Two unsafe vehicles written off the road.

And just to prove that you can police the road and do REAL police work too,

1 x report of wilfull damage
2 x reports of domestic burglary
1 x burgler locked up from a DNA hit sampled from an exhibit found at the scene.
2 x juvenile offenders caught and locked up for breaking into cars.

Not a bad days work overall.

Quasievil
8th June 2004, 07:48
Sadly I might have to retract this statement after yesterdays effort.

Sum total for the day:
8 drivers warned for speed up to 64kph

10 x speeding tickets ranging from 65 - 88 kph. One was a biker snatched at 87. Another a middle aged female caught at 88kph overtaking in a residential area and then ran a red light trying to evade police. Another was a woman aged about 65 nabbed at 76kph.

One idiot riding a clapped out scooter without a helmet.

Two unsafe vehicles written off the road.

And just to prove that you can police the road and do REAL police work too,

1 x report of wilfull damage
2 x reports of domestic burglary
1 x burgler locked up from a DNA hit sampled from an exhibit found at the scene.
2 x juvenile offenders caught and locked up for breaking into cars.

Not a bad days work overall.

I managed the dishes YAWN YAWN

scumdog
8th June 2004, 10:06
I managed the dishes YAWN YAWN

Must of stretched yourself to achieve that much Q.E? :niceone:

scumdog
8th June 2004, 10:13
New Zealand drivers in general? I think thats the attitude that pisses some people off - The Gov't and LTSA can't be bothered differentiating between the responsible and irresponsible.Once again it must be too hard or too expensive.

Yeah,they STILL havent completed developement of the "stupidoscope" so they can tell the difference between irresponsibe and responsible drivers, however the Govt. will probably be quite keen on the method you would want for telling the difference - especially if it is cheap, reliable, simple to use and 100% accurate. :msn-wink:

Quasievil
8th June 2004, 10:18
Yeah,they STILL havent completed developement of the "stupidoscope" so they can tell the difference between irresponsibe and responsible drivers, however the Govt. will probably be quite keen on the method you would want for telling the difference - especially if it is cheap, reliable, simple to use and 100% accurate. :msn-wink:


I heard the Japs are working on one now :buggerd:

modalx
10th June 2004, 15:52
CORRECTION

Earlier I said that even with a seat belt and air bag it was almost impossible to survive a direct collision with a fixed object or slow moving vehicle at 100kph. Someone said that was rubbish so I checked and it turns out I was exaggerating. There are lots of problems in working this out (maybe all cars should be fitted with black-boxes so we can get this right) but the best numbers I can find suggest the chance of dying in this situation is somewhere between 64 and 78%. Hope everyone feels safer!

pete376403
10th June 2004, 17:06
Technology hasn't made that much of a difference. The current speed limit was introduced some time in the 1980's, don't remember the exact year. Prior to that it was 80kph.
Prior to metrication the open road limit was 55 miles per hour and had been for a rather long time. This was considered a safe maximum speed when a mark II Zephyr represented the pinnacle of technology, running on 5 inch wide crossplies. briefly the speed limit was dropped to 50 MPH with first oil crisis, along with carless days. This was only to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to do with road safety. After these ideas were dropped (along with Muldoon) the limit went back up to 55 MPH. Converting this to metric would have resulted in an 88 KPH speed limit, so it was raised to 100 KPH (or 60 MPH in the old money.)
So the limit is pretty arbitrary, and takes little account of the vastly superior technology cars & bikes use now.

marty
10th June 2004, 19:17
the limit is not arbitrary. it is based on formula, research and lessons learnt, using the principle of TLV -Threshold Limit Value - that is a limit that MOST people will be comfortable with. The same formula is applied to chemical and biological levels in the atmosphere/ground - eg, a product (lets say benzine) has a 'safe' level of 500ppm in air. some people will be sensitive at a much lower level, some will be able to tolerate it much higher. the same issue goes for a speed limit. some can easily cope at twice the limit, most are safe at or near to the speed limit, and some shouldn't be allowed out of their driveway, or they'll break out in a rash

madandy
10th June 2004, 20:23
Yeah,they STILL havent completed developement of the "stupidoscope" so they can tell the difference between irresponsibe and responsible drivers, however the Govt. will probably be quite keen on the method you would want for telling the difference - especially if it is cheap, reliable, simple to use and 100% accurate. :msn-wink:

Responsibility would easily be ascertained in driver education/training practise.People who take their riding/driving seriously are paying out from their own pockets for advanced skills training and maintain their vehicles meticulously.

As for the "stupidoscope" just take a look around you next time you're out on the road...tailgating, riding the centre line, failing to indicate, inability to maintain a constant cruising speed, poor cornering lines, braking mid bend, speeding up on passing lanes with no intention of passing etc etc...all are signs of incompetence and easily spotted.

NZIrish
11th June 2004, 02:19
Johnny wanted to be a traffic Officer, so he joined the 'MOT', one day the MOT were made into Policemen. Johnny soon found himself wearing a blue uniform instead of a black and white one. Then one day Johnny, who wasn't used to using his discretion, as most real Policemen were, started issuing everyone with tickets in the small rural town he had recently been transferred to. He would give tickets for all sorts of things, like pregnant solo mothers speeding to the hospital for instance. He would ensure he was giving tickets when real Policing had to be done, like chasing criminals. One day Johnny found himself at the local pub all by himself, because he had been sent there as the only officer available. Johnny was a bit scared as a fight had broken out and he wasn't sure if he could handle the situation. Stepping inside he saw two patrons in a stand-off , one holding a knife, the only barman on the floor unconscience and bleeding, Johnny knew he had to act, he also knew he needed help from the other patrons. Johnny looked for help, he recognised most of the faces as people he had issued tickets to, most in fact more than once, some whom he had heated arguments with even over the fact, but most he knew would help him....wouldn't they.......he thought. Johnny was worried.

..Would they help indeed. This guys, is a by-product of the current Policy on the issuing of tickets, I shit you not!.

Funny thing happened to, Johnny was promoted soon after being released from hospital and is now an Inspector of Police with the Traffic Safety programme bbbwwwaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

It is surely the biggest crock of shit that has ever happened in the History of the NZ Police, where people wait hours for Police to attend burglaries, even if the offender is on the bloody premises, assaults, etc etc because so much time is dedicated to wrighting fecken tickets. In fact I here in parts of Auckland they take burglary reports over the fecken phone!

Since the merger the NZ Police have been infected with a cancer in the form of 'ex-mot' types...who 'some' incidentally flatly refused to complete the Police basic training course but went out there anyway with there PR24 and authority to use deadly force if it came to that.

The very scary thought of course is that some of those mutants are now involved in policy making on actual 'Police' procedure and tactics.....like Johnny for instance. :LMAO!@#Q@#

PS: DNA sample...yeah right!
:no:

scumdog
11th June 2004, 05:16
Responsibility would easily be ascertained in driver education/training practise.People who take their riding/driving seriously are paying out from their own pockets for advanced skills training and maintain their vehicles meticulously.

As for the "stupidoscope" just take a look around you next time you're out on the road...tailgating, riding the centre line, failing to indicate, inability to maintain a constant cruising speed, poor cornering lines, braking mid bend, speeding up on passing lanes with no intention of passing etc etc...all are signs of incompetence and easily spotted.

Trouble is you have to be there to do anything about although at the risk of firing up certain people *555 (or 111 if it's bad enough) do work- just not ALL of the time.
People DO ge tickets for tailgating, cutting corners etc and they squeal about it almost as much as some on this forum do about speeding tickets :weep:

Lou Girardin
11th June 2004, 06:43
A most entertaining fantasy nzirish, don't let any facts get in the way though. I think you did leave one or two in.
Use of deadly force by a non-sworn Officer! Excellent.
Admittedly, I do know of one ex-Mot, Police Inspector who locked himself in the Patrol car while his partner was being assaulted. Had to call for back-up, you see. Took him a while too. I think he was waiting for the offenders to get tired.
It hasn't hurt his Police career though.
And Marty, speed limits are set to that which most people are comfortable with, are they?
Why are your cronies writing so many tickets then?

spudchucka
11th June 2004, 14:14
Johnny wanted to be a traffic Officer, so he joined the 'MOT', one day the MOT were made into Policemen. Johnny soon found himself wearing a blue uniform instead of a black and white one. Then one day Johnny, who wasn't used to using his discretion, as most real Policemen were, started issuing everyone with tickets in the small rural town he had recently been transferred to. He would give tickets for all sorts of things, like pregnant solo mothers speeding to the hospital for instance. He would ensure he was giving tickets when real Policing had to be done, like chasing criminals. One day Johnny found himself at the local pub all by himself, because he had been sent there as the only officer available. Johnny was a bit scared as a fight had broken out and he wasn't sure if he could handle the situation. Stepping inside he saw two patrons in a stand-off , one holding a knife, the only barman on the floor unconscience and bleeding, Johnny knew he had to act, he also knew he needed help from the other patrons. Johnny looked for help, he recognised most of the faces as people he had issued tickets to, most in fact more than once, some whom he had heated arguments with even over the fact, but most he knew would help him....wouldn't they.......he thought. Johnny was worried.

..Would they help indeed. This guys, is a by-product of the current Policy on the issuing of tickets, I shit you not!.

Funny thing happened to, Johnny was promoted soon after being released from hospital and is now an Inspector of Police with the Traffic Safety programme bbbwwwaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

It is surely the biggest crock of shit that has ever happened in the History of the NZ Police, where people wait hours for Police to attend burglaries, even if the offender is on the bloody premises, assaults, etc etc because so much time is dedicated to wrighting fecken tickets. In fact I here in parts of Auckland they take burglary reports over the fecken phone!

Since the merger the NZ Police have been infected with a cancer in the form of 'ex-mot' types...who 'some' incidentally flatly refused to complete the Police basic training course but went out there anyway with there PR24 and authority to use deadly force if it came to that.

The very scary thought of course is that some of those mutants are now involved in policy making on actual 'Police' procedure and tactics.....like Johnny for instance. :LMAO!@#Q@#

PS: DNA sample...yeah right!
:no:
Oh crap, not another one. :moon:

igor
11th June 2004, 14:31
Johnny wanted to be a traffic Officer, so he joined the 'MOT', one day the MOT were made into Policemen. Johnny soon found himself wearing a blue uniform instead of a black and white one. Then one day Johnny, who wasn't used to using his discretion, as most real Policemen were, started issuing everyone with tickets in the small rural town he had recently been transferred to. He would give tickets for all sorts of things, like pregnant solo mothers speeding to the hospital for instance. He would ensure he was giving tickets when real Policing had to be done, like chasing criminals. One day Johnny found himself at the local pub all by himself, because he had been sent there as the only officer available. Johnny was a bit scared as a fight had broken out and he wasn't sure if he could handle the situation. Stepping inside he saw two patrons in a stand-off , one holding a knife, the only barman on the floor unconscience and bleeding, Johnny knew he had to act, he also knew he needed help from the other patrons. Johnny looked for help, he recognised most of the faces as people he had issued tickets to, most in fact more than once, some whom he had heated arguments with even over the fact, but most he knew would help him....wouldn't they.......he thought. Johnny was worried.

..Would they help indeed. This guys, is a by-product of the current Policy on the issuing of tickets, I shit you not!.

Funny thing happened to, Johnny was promoted soon after being released from hospital and is now an Inspector of Police with the Traffic Safety programme bbbwwwaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

It is surely the biggest crock of shit that has ever happened in the History of the NZ Police, where people wait hours for Police to attend burglaries, even if the offender is on the bloody premises, assaults, etc etc because so much time is dedicated to wrighting fecken tickets. In fact I here in parts of Auckland they take burglary reports over the fecken phone!

Since the merger the NZ Police have been infected with a cancer in the form of 'ex-mot' types...who 'some' incidentally flatly refused to complete the Police basic training course but went out there anyway with there PR24 and authority to use deadly force if it came to that.

The very scary thought of course is that some of those mutants are now involved in policy making on actual 'Police' procedure and tactics.....like Johnny for instance. :LMAO!@#Q@#

PS: DNA sample...yeah right!
:no:

whats johnnys surname start with

Bandito
11th June 2004, 14:54
UNBELIEVABLE!!! 75000 more speeding tickets and all the time they are telling us that the road toll is coming down as result of less speeding motorists thru heavier policing of speed. So I guess they are going to issue 25% more speeding tickets from a smaller pool of speeding motorists therefor if we all behave ourselves an nobody speeds the police could then invent a new law such as "Intending to speed" to keep the
revenue flow at the required rate.It may sound ridiculous to you but so is the rest of the bullshit we have been fed since the introduction of speed cameras.
When the police can produce a link between high revenue gathering areas and high accident areas I could almost start to take them seriously.

vifferman
11th June 2004, 15:04
When the police can produce a link between high revenue gathering areas and high accident areas I could almost start to take them seriously.
...and the revenue gathered is used on that same accident blackspot to fix it up. :2thumbsup

igor
11th June 2004, 15:09
Sadly I might have to retract this statement after yesterdays effort.

Sum total for the day:
8 drivers warned for speed up to 64kph

10 x speeding tickets ranging from 65 - 88 kph. One was a biker snatched at 87. Another a middle aged female caught at 88kph overtaking in a residential area and then ran a red light trying to evade police. Another was a woman aged about 65 nabbed at 76kph.

One idiot riding a clapped out scooter without a helmet.

Two unsafe vehicles written off the road.

And just to prove that you can police the road and do REAL police work too,

1 x report of wilfull damage
2 x reports of domestic burglary
1 x burgler locked up from a DNA hit sampled from an exhibit found at the scene.
2 x juvenile offenders caught and locked up for breaking into cars.

Not a bad days work overall.

where abouts in godzone do u work as they must have some real dumbass's there.

taihape perhaps, nah don't think they got traffic lights there.

PS i nose how hot ya is on spelling, cause ya corrected me b4, and i fink ya spelt somefing rong in the above quote. i no its hard being perfect but please don't let yaself down like this again

Lou Girardin
12th June 2004, 07:25
whats johnnys surname start with

Surname wouldn't be Kelly would it?

Then there's the ex-MOT Sergeant, now Police Inspector, who locked himself in the car when his partner was being assaulted.
He was 'calling for back-up'. Took a while though, we thought he was waiting for the offenders to get tired.
And Marty, if the TLV is 100 km/h, why are 750,000 people getting speeding tickets each year?
And rising.

marty
12th June 2004, 11:42
And Marty, if the TLV is 100 km/h, why are 750,000 people getting speeding tickets each year?
And rising.

there might be 750000 getting tickets, but a shit load more are not....in my experience at least 1/3 of those receiving one ticket, will receive another within 12 months.

scumdog
12th June 2004, 11:54
there might be 750000 getting tickets, but a shit load more are not....in my experience at least 1/3 of those receiving one ticket, will receive another within 12 months.

Your'e dead right Marty, amazing the amount that say "eff you, I can't afford this ticket, I'll have 130 demerits now and lose my licence, youv'e ruined my life you ...hole"

I bet that kind of person would also piss on an electric fence more than once too!! :doh:

If my licence was in jeopardy I'd be paranoid about speeding but maybe I'm not THAT slow a learner after all :2thumbsup

10,9,7,6,etc,,,,,,,,,,,

spudchucka
13th June 2004, 10:56
...and the revenue gathered is used on that same accident blackspot to fix it up. :2thumbsup
Take it up with the Govt.

spudchucka
13th June 2004, 10:58
there might be 750000 getting tickets, but a shit load more are not....in my experience at least 1/3 of those receiving one ticket, will receive another within 12 months.
Because its the same bunch of dumbarse drivers that keep speeding and are too stupid to not get caught.

spudchucka
13th June 2004, 11:01
where abouts in godzone do u work as they must have some real dumbass's there.

taihape perhaps, nah don't think they got traffic lights there.

PS i nose how hot ya is on spelling, cause ya corrected me b4, and i fink ya spelt somefing rong in the above quote. i no its hard being perfect but please don't let yaself down like this again
I don't give a stuff about spelling. I do have a low idiot tolerance level though.

Lou Girardin
13th June 2004, 16:03
I don't give a stuff about spelling. I do have a low idiot tolerance level though.

And obviously a very wide definition of an idiot.
Basically anyone who disagrees with you.

igor
13th June 2004, 16:21
I don't give a stuff about spelling. I do have a low idiot tolerance level though.

don't be so hard on yaself.

me i have a very high tolerance on igits.

why i work and i have 4 rules
- treat work like a hobby
- take 38 days leave a year
- don't take work home with ya
- get paid every 2 weeks
:whocares:

KATWYN
13th June 2004, 16:26
don't be so hard on yaself.

me i have a very high tolerance on igits.

why i work and i have 4 rules
- treat work like a hobby
- take 38 days leave a year
- don't take work home with ya
- get paid every 2 weeks
:whocares:

Well that would be quite easy, considering you say in your profile you are on the dole??

marty
13th June 2004, 16:45
don't be so hard on yaself.

me i have a very high tolerance on igits.

why i work and i have 4 rules
- treat work like a hobby
- take 38 days leave a year
- don't take work home with ya
- get paid every 2 weeks
:whocares:
what a motivating, exciting existence you must have

Lou Girardin
13th June 2004, 17:03
don't be so hard on yaself.

me i have a very high tolerance on igits.

why i work and i have 4 rules
- treat work like a hobby
- take 38 days leave a year
- don't take work home with ya
- get paid every 2 weeks
:whocares:

You're not going to die of a stress related illness. Good on ya.

marty
13th June 2004, 17:05
neither am i, but at least i go to work cause i enjoy it

scumdog
13th June 2004, 20:57
don't be so hard on yaself.

me i have a very high tolerance on igits.

why i work and i have 4 rules
- treat work like a hobby
- take 38 days leave a year
- don't take work home with ya
- get paid every 2 weeks
:whocares:

Sounds not dissimilar to my job and I have to deal with a lot of idgits :blah:

igor
13th June 2004, 21:02
Well that would be quite easy, considering you say in your profile you are on the dole??

and as we say in our job "Bullshit makes the world go around" theres enuf of it here. :killingme

igor
13th June 2004, 21:05
neither am i, but at least i go to work cause i enjoy it

oh i enjoy it, but i don't, live it, breath it, and be the internet justifer of it, :tugger: like some others

scumdog
13th June 2004, 21:25
oh i enjoy it, but i don't, live it, breath it, and be the internet justifer of it, :tugger: like some others

Woohoo!!! - I detect a certain amount of prodding/stirring with a large stick!!! :Pokey:

spudchucka
13th June 2004, 23:44
And obviously a very wide definition of an idiot.
Basically anyone who disagrees with you.
You're top of the list!

spudchucka
13th June 2004, 23:46
don't be so hard on yaself.

me i have a very high tolerance on igits.

why i work and i have 4 rules
- treat work like a hobby
- take 38 days leave a year
- don't take work home with ya
- get paid every 2 weeks
:whocares:
You're first equal with Lou.

igor
14th June 2004, 18:08
You're first equal with Lou.

i resent that.

i didn't get mentioned in the letters to the editor in the sunday star times yesterday.

and I have never written a letter to the editor of a paper.

Lou does seem to have more of a sense of humuor than some others though and nose when someone is taking the piss or taking the piss

some others have not worked out all i do is take the piss, all the time cause life ant that serious, unless of course ya wanna perf which i never will cause i don't stress about f#*k all cause it ant life worth stresssing about :killingme

shit happens, if shit happens its happened and there ant firk all ya can do about it. so why stress.

also i won't write all the shit i have seen, as some others seem to cause i seen so much i can't remember it all. we all seem to do the same shit, different location.

bit of advice, spend some time with those that matter most in ya life, i think ya mentioned ya gotta wife and a wee girl, those i bet a the two most important people in ya life. spend more time with than replyng and justifing ya work to some whining halfwit.

the politicians, ya senior bosses don't give a shit, are things gunna change. i doubt it, remember those halfwits ya went to school with, well they have had kids and their kids have had kids, more halfwits have appeared and ya never gunna stop it. also those halfwits are now the wonderboy chemists who are blowing imselfs up in P labs cause they think they are chemists.

live your life and may the most of it.

fuck im beginning to sound like some one from the Destiny Church

better clap me hands and run for government, wonder if the have a member for kawhia yet