Speeding (again...)

[kerryg]

Just saw this on the Xtra homepage....seems to confirm what many members of the public and of this forum believe....



Hiding Cameras And Facts
15/06/2004 07:05 AM - By Sandy Myhre
The news that Police are adopting an 'any time, anywhere' approach to speed cameras and a stated 25 percent increase in the number of tickets to be issued, comes as no surprise. It will, says the official jargon, decrease the road toll. It is designed, we are lead to believe, to save us from our ourselves.

But will it?

According to a recent report from Britain's transport department researchers, exceeding the speed limit is not the main cause of car crashes. Data collected from 13 police divisions pointed to inattention (25.8 percent), failure to judge the other person's path or speed (22.6), looked but did not see (19.7) as the three top causes of traffic accidents. Excessive speed accounted for 12.5 percent of those accidents. Furthermore, 70 percent of excessive-speed accidents occurred within the speed limit thus falling into the category of driving too fast for the conditions.

Why, then, are we piling so many of our resources on to speed cameras?

In a hard-hitting column in the June issue of Driver magazine, editor Allan Dick says between 75 and 80 percent of fatal road crashes in New Zealand occur below the legal speed limit. This appears to be consistent with the British experience. He rightly asks why so much government road safety policy is aimed at advertising that tell us "speed kills" and why so much police enforcement emphasis is placed on ticketing drivers who exceed that limit.

There is a strong argument that one-size-fits-all speed limits may not be appropriate. One speed camera outside Fairlie in the South Island ticketed 685 out of 3,500 drivers in 12 hours which suggests that while drivers might have been exceeding the posted limit, they may not have been driving unsafely or without care and attention. In fact, these 685 drivers may have been driving very sensibly indeed by going with the flow of traffic yet their "misdemenour" brandishes them all criminals.

It's hard to escape the notion that speed cameras like the one in Fairlie - and others around the country - are a superbly crafted stratagem to increase government coffers. It's usually called revenue-gathering. The Land Transport Safety Authority and the Police ardently deny this of course but their advertising backs this up. The "speed kills" campaign is all-pervasive.

But the "any time, anywhere" approach to speed camera placement is supported, surprisingly, by the Automobile Association. Did the AA examine some of the research available internationally that shows speed per se not to be the major culprit in road accidents and fatalities? And that by far the majority of those accidents occur under the limit?

What the AA does take issue with however is not posting speed camera area warning signs. Catching speedsters by stealth is not, believes the AA, in the best interest of the motoring public.

The Chief Executive of the AA, Brian Gibbons, further argues for a rethink from road controlling authorities on the appropriateness of speed limits and whether they are "match the character of the land".

What the Police, the LTSA and the AA seemed to have missed altogether however, is the need for a much higher standard of driver training.

In spite of the millions of dollars spent on ramming home the "speed kills" message and the drink/drive "bloody idiot" sloganism, there has been a consistent failure on the part of government departs and reasonably august motoring bodies to even consider raising the standard of driver capability in this country. And while we are debating whether to increase the legal drinking age back up to 20, we still allow 15 year olds to drive.

There is a gradiated driver licence system but it doesn't show how well a driver handles a car. It just means they can't drive on their own and at a certain time of night. A five minute whizz around the block with a traffic officer grants a licence but it doesn't tell the examining officer anything about how the candidate can control the car. Neither does scratching the right answer to pass the written test or doing the test in a foreign language with an interpreter present.

It's well known that it's harder to get a car licence in, for example, Germany or Britain and anyone who has driven in either of those two countries will tell you the standard of behaviour on their roads far exceeds ours. In fact, the death-by-accident rate in both countries is lower than ours in spite of the fact that you can drive as fast as you like on the autobahns in Germany.

The corollary to that of course is that travellers returning from overseas gasp at the cavalier attitude displayed by New Zealand drivers by comparison. In other words, we are poorly trained.

What the Police and LTSA don't say either, is that active and passive safety technology in motor cars has increased markedly and may contribute to a reduction in the road toll as much, if not more, than reducing national speeds. And we may not be as silly as Police and LTSA advertising leads us to believe. More people than ever are availing themselves of the numerous advanced driver training schools and courses available in this country.

The late Denny Hulme, O.B.E, the only New Zealander ever to win the Formula One world championship, was a man who knew a thing or two about speed. He advocated teaching children from as young as 5 years old, when they started school, the basics of good driver attitude, in much the same way as we teach about health issues.

The simplistic "speed kills" message and increasing the number of speed cameras is surely past its use-by date.


About The Writer

Sandy Myhre
XtraMSN

[spudchucka]

This has been thrashed out plenty allready. Nothing has changed, theres plenty of arguements on both sides of the fence, people can make up there own minds. Bottom line is that the speed limit won't change anytime soon and police won't stop policing it, so drive accordingly and you won't have any problems.

[kerryg]

This has been thrashed out plenty allready. Nothing has changed, theres plenty of arguements on both sides of the fence, people can make up there own minds. Bottom line is that the speed limit won't change anytime soon and police won't stop policing it, so drive accordingly and you won't have any problems.


Not wanting to provoke anybody, just thought it was interesting...

For the record I don't have a strong view about the speed limit, just the disproportionate emphasis on policing it compared to other (arguably) more serious things.And I know coppers don't make the rules and can't choose to selectively ignore them. Those things are undisputed. It's more a concern that people who set the priorities seem to be prioritising speeding and that means less resources for the other driving offences...

[750Y]

good post.
speed is the easiest to target and hey there's money in it, and it helps scare people into slowing down to the limit. my only concern is safe driving/riding, not the law. I don't want to hurt myself or anyone else. but 120 on the road is not a large safety issue for me when the conditions allow it. there's always the what-if but life's like that at the speed limit too.

[kerryg]

good post.
speed is the easiest to target and hey there's money in it, and it helps scare people into slowing down to the limit. my only concern is safe driving/riding, not the law. I don't want to hurt myself or anyone else. but 120 on the road is not a large safety issue for me when the conditions allow it. there's always the what-if but life's like that at the speed limit too.

Hi 750Y

I guess whether the speed limit is 100 or 120 or whatever speed limits are necessary and unavoidable...however much we might like to go really quick in the right conditions. It's just one of those realities like tax...

So if you're caught speeding, it's tough luck and you should take it like a man. But I long for the days (not that long ago) when you were as likely to be let of with a telling off if you were caught 20kms over the limit on a fine day on a straight road with no other cars in sight...

A while ago I got a ticket on the motorway north of Christchurch, in pretty much the conditions I described above. Two policemen in a shiny big HP car chased me (well...chase is an exaggeration), stopped me, took my details, spent 5 minutes on the radio establsihing (I assume) whether I was a prison escaper or possibly a serial killer and then gave me an $80 ticket for doing.... 111kms hour. I asked them if I'd helped them achieve their quota and why they weren't out there catching bad guys instead...but they seemed oddly unamused. So I think it makes for a bad public perception of the police. Theee is supposed a " social contract" between the plod and us and this petty revenue gathering, to the detriment of other " proper" policing undermines that. Does anyone think of the police as "your friendly neighbourhood bobby" any more. Get your house broken into, your privacy violated and possessions nicked and see how easy it is to get the police interested (I speak from personal experience)...they really are too busy to spend their scarce resources.....makes you wonder :wacko:

[Hoon]

People have been complaining about getting speeding tickets since the wheel was invented. We always have and we always will. If we didn't have "revenue gathering" to blame, it would be something else instead......but never ourselves ohh noo!

[NordieBoy]

People have been complaining about getting speeding tickets since the wheel was invented. We always have and we always will. If we didn't have "revenue gathering" to blame, it would be something else instead......but never ourselves ohh noo!

Let's all change direction then.

Blame the Hoons of the world !

:eyepoke:

[Lou Girardin]

Lets all listen to Spudman. Get a good tooth hold on the pillow and let the Gummint extract your cash without protest.

[750Y]

People have been complaining about getting speeding tickets ..If we didn't have "revenue gathering" to blame, it would be something else instead......but never ourselves ohh noo!

hey there hoon, I've never had a speeding ticket on a bike yet i truly believe that in light of the above facts that kerry laid out there is a real case for the whole situation to be at least looked at. the public can't be expected to swallow this crap forever. fact must enter into the equation at some point. people would probably feel a bit better if someone would at least front up and stop lying to us en masse and basically admit that there is a definite element of revenue collection behind existing speeding enforcement policy. so is it the ltsa, the govt or the police who need to come clean on this? i don't know how it works or who makes the decisions. this is the worst part for me, it's like re-runs of clinton evrytime we get an official on the tv. "bla bla nothing to do with revenue bla bla speed kills bla bla". it's just plain untruth and we ALL know that.

[spudchucka]

Lets all listen to Spudman. Get a good tooth hold on the pillow and let the Gummint extract your cash without protest.
You are really going off on your own special crusade at the moment.

Whats it like on planet Lou?? Lonely I bet!

[spudchucka]

people would probably feel a bit better if someone would at least front up and stop lying to us en masse and basically admit that there is a definite element of revenue collection behind existing speeding enforcement policy. so is it the ltsa, the govt or the police who need to come clean on this? i don't know how it works or who makes the decisions.

I'll only comment as a general dogs body cop, I don't know about HP because I've never worked there.

Police are charged with two main functions or goals, (call them what you want), Crime & Crash reduction. The police receive a lump of money every year to operate the NZ police. The size of the lump is negotiated and agreed on independantly of how many tickets the police issue so revenue collected has nil to do with the police operating budget. A portion of the money received, (about 25% I believe) comes from the the NZ Road Safety Council, (can't remember the exact name but its something like that). This money is collected from ACC, LTSA etc etc, basically organisations that have an interest in road safety issues. These organisations expect to receive X amount of road policing in return for their money. The police therefore have to deliver X amount of hours of road policing in order to satisfy the contracts they have with the NZRSC agencies. The "quota" that everyone raves about is an individual performance measurement that for cops who are delivering traffic hours, they should be able to deliver X amount of "contacts" per hour of traffic enforcement delivered. Two contacts per hour is what is generally expected. Now a contact can be a warning, assisting a motorist or another cop, a ticket, a traffic offence notice where a person will later be summoned, an excess breath alcohol procedure or an arrest. Cops who issue warning upon warning and never issue tickets will be asked why the hell they joined the job if they aren't prepared to write tickets. So to keep the bosses off your back you do have to issue tickets. As for achieving the "quota" my personal preference is to spend time where I know the local crims live and target them. They are always good for shit loads of tickets because they are dickheads and have no regard for laws / rules, (that way I don't have to target Joe public and I get to f**k off criminals, which is one of the fun parts of the job) others like to get the laser out and others like to have a check point here or there and stop traffic, (heaps of "contacts" there).

I may have had one too many beers so this might be an all over the place post so I'll apologise if it doesn't make sense. Basically I'm saying that its not revenue gathering from a police point of view, it might be from a Govt point of view. Other agencies have an influence on how the police operate due to the manner in which the polcie are funded. Most GDB cops hate doing traffic except if it is directed at criminals.

Sorry for the long post.

[bgd]

Sort of on topic

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3835747.stm

[Bob]

Sorry this is going to be a long one - but I did some research on our Minister of Transports waffle for the following article, which I'll repeat in full:

"According to an alleged leaked letter from Transport Minister David Jamieson, the reason for an increase in the road death rate is due "to the increasing popularity of high-performance motorcycles."

Despite the Government's recent annoucement that it was meeting all of its road safety targets, figures from 19 police forces, compiled by the lobby group SafeSpeed, show a 5 per cent increase in the annual death rate last year, the sharpest rise for 15 years. The survey calls into question the Government’s strategy of increasing the number of speed cameras while allowing forces to redeploy hundreds of traffic police to other duties.

Ministers have attempted to deflect attention from their failure to reduce the death rate by focusing on the fall in the number of serious injuries in road crashes (17%) in the last four years. But this figure was qualified by a note tucked away in a three-year progress report on road safety strategy, published by the Department for Transport in April.

The report said: “The previous downward trend in fatalities appears to have ceased since 1998. The 17 per cent reduction in killed and seriously injured is therefore entirely a result of year-on-year reductions that have been seen in serious injuries.” It concluded that the failure to reduce the death rate “would clearly detract from the success of achieving the target”.

The leaked letter from Mr Jamieson to the Government’s panel of road safety advisers discloses the concern over the death rate. Mr Jamieson writes: “I would like to make the levelling off in fatalities a particular area of focus for the panel.” It seems Mr Jamieson ruled out setting a separate target for cutting the death rate. “But I do think we need more research into why the death rate is not coming down,” he wrote in the letter.

So where does the blame lie for the increase in road deaths? Mr Jameison lays this firmly at our door, commenting “One of the main reasons why the death rate had stuck at about 3,400 for the past five years was the increasing popularity of high-performance motorcycles. Almost a fifth of all the people who died on the roads in 2002 were motorcyclists. The largest proportion of these were “born-again bikers”, men in their 30s and 40s riding machines of more than 500cc.”

But do the figure bear this out? The latest figures I could find from the DETR would seem to agree on the age front, showing 53.30% of UK motorcycle accidents are from the 26-40 age group, with 23.6% involving under 25’s. However, sports bikes were involved in under half (43%) the accidents, interesting given that the sales of bikes are dominated by this class.

The figures also make for interesting reading, given SafeSpeed’s criticism of increased reliance on cameras:

72% of motorcyclist casualties occur on built-up roads (roads with a speed limit of up to 40 mph), even though such roads carry less than half of motorcycle traffic. 26% of all casualties occur on rural roads (roads with a speed limit of over 40 mph) and just 1% of motorcyclist casualties occur on motorways, which carry 7% of >motorcyclist traffic. The pattern for motorcyclist fatalities differs however, with : 60% of motorcyclist deaths occurring on non built-up roads, 37% on built-up roads and 3% on motorways.

So the implication appears that commuters are the main culprit in terms of accidents, but leisure riders are the biggest group in the death stats.

A TRL study found that approximately 75% of motorcycle accidents occur at impact speeds of up to 48km/h (30 mph) and 96% at up to 64 km/h (40 mph). The >study also found that almost all (93%) of the serious and fatal head injuries occur at speeds of up to 64km/h (40 mph).

This would infer that speed on its own is not the problem.

A national strategy on reducing motorcycle deaths is to be announced in the autumn."

[moko]

It`s not difficult.The set speed limit is the law.If you break the law you get punished.No Speed camera will ever catch you if you dont break the speed limit/speeding law.If you do and get caught then tough shit sunshine,you made your choice and got nabbed.I speed regularly,often and sometimes excessively if the conditions are right,if I get hammered for it then it will be a a result of my choice to knowingly ignore the rules,my fault and not the cops,a camera or anyone else`s.
Biggest thing I`ve got against what is going on,as opposed to the cameras themselves,is the fact that traffic cop numbers are being cut and boy do bikers know it with every dickhead thinking they`re on a stock-car track.
As for Mr Jamieson,he`s a local M.P. and a total wanker,I think he`ll find cluster bombs are more dangerous than bikes,not to mention barbaric and illegal yet his government condones their use.He`s also big mates with a local bike dealer,the true nature of British politics no doubt meaning that he`ll do a lot of talking while not wishing to offend a powerful local businessman with a lot of clout in the local press.

[Lou Girardin]

You can dress the situation up with policy waffle all you like Spud. But try and consider who makes the policy and why?
They're not going to say to the general dogsbody cop, " go out there and write 3 irrelevant tickets per hour because they Government likes getting an extra billion in revenue and we'll get more dosh from them".

[750Y]

Thanks for clearing some of that up spud. kinda nice to hear it from the horses mouth so to speak. I thought that was a pretty objective reply.
and as moko pointed out, we all know the rules and the penalties associated so from that perspective there's really no problem.. it's the ol... 'do the crime do the time' thing which even a simpleton like me can understand.
so enough on speeding from me now, i'll go looking for another post to rant in 8-)

[pete376403]

If all of us (my self included) who are against the current LTSA regime spent as much time letter writing to the local MP, etc, as we do posting here, then it's possible a change may occur.
Wonderful as this site is, ranting here against Govt policy is pissing in the wind.

[spudchucka]

You can dress the situation up with policy waffle all you like Spud. But try and consider who makes the policy and why?
They're not going to say to the general dogsbody cop, " go out there and write 3 irrelevant tickets per hour because they Government likes getting an extra billion in revenue and we'll get more dosh from them".
You've lost the plot,

[Wenier]

after wut spud has said it points out the fact that you have to target the companies/organisations that fund the police to change their revenue gathering so to speak.

[Posh Tourer :P]

You can dress the situation up with policy waffle all you like Spud. But try and consider who makes the policy and why?
They're not going to say to the general dogsbody cop, " go out there and write 3 irrelevant tickets per hour because they Government likes getting an extra billion in revenue and we'll get more dosh from them".

You've forgotten the difference between contacts and tickets Lou. I guess 1-2 tickets an hour cant be hard to do, the other 1-2 contacts need only be community service like chatting to a motorcyclist stuck on the side of the motorway....

[Gixxer 4 ever]

Hi 750Y

Does anyone think of the police as "your friendly neighbourhood bobby" any more. Get your house broken into, your privacy violated and possessions nicked and see how easy it is to get the police interested (I speak from personal experience)...they really are too busy to spend their scarce resources.....makes you wonder :wacko:
This is a point I made in another post. Look I have always been happy to help the cops on the street when they are out numbered and or need help. Never ask for anything back. I got a ticket for a good sum for doing a reasonable speed recently. Pissed off? you bet. I passed a truck and there was nothing else on the road. Only a cop hiding in the bushes in the dark. Good on you prick. Would I help him when he needed help now? Probably but I have to say I have a different view of the traffic cops now. Also I find I think of the police in the same light. Sad really as some of the locals ride and I spend time with them. The bottom line is I always admired the cops and was prepared to help out now they are just another thing to look out for.
This sounds like sour grapes and it is to a point but I stay in side the law and get shit back for it. Step a few ks's over the limit ( alright a few more than that but ) and get skinned. No interest at all to what has passed over the years before. <_<

[Gixxer 4 ever]

You've lost the plot,

Question for you Spudchucker? When you pull some one over do you have a discretionary fine? Ie can you determine the fine relating to the attitude etc of the person you have pulled over or is the fine set and short of another offence you can not increase or decrease the amount? I suppose I should know this but I don't.

[Mongoose]

Lets all listen to Spudman. Get a good tooth hold on the pillow and let the Gummint extract your cash without protest.


Lou, hows about you go get some finacial backing and turn into a full time lobiest at the Beehive, give you some where to target your campaign and maybe leave your dorky ideas off this forum. :soon:

[Lou Girardin]

Lou, hows about you go get some finacial backing and turn into a full time lobiest at the Beehive, give you some where to target your campaign and maybe leave your dorky ideas off this forum. :soon:

Donations gratefully accepted.

[spudchucka]

Question for you Spudchucker? When you pull some one over do you have a discretionary fine? Ie can you determine the fine relating to the attitude etc of the person you have pulled over or is the fine set and short of another offence you can not increase or decrease the amount? I suppose I should know this but I don't.
There are two types of traffic "citations", (for want of a better word I'll use the USA lingo). An "Infringement Offence Notice" is a instant fine, the amount of the fine is predetermined and the officer has no discretion as to the fine amount. A "Traffic Offence Notice" does not carry an instant fine, if you get one of these you will have an appointment with the Court in the near future. These are for such offences as Careless, Dangerous, Reckless, EBA, Boy Racer Offences, generally the more serious stuff. You will have a Court appearance and if you plead guilty or are later proven guilty the Court will determine the appropriate penalty. There are guidlines the Court must follow, example, for EBA the Court must impose the minimum of a 6 month disqualification for 1st time drink driving offences.

Sometimes cops will discount a speeding ticket by a few K's to give the driver a smaller fine and less demerits, thats about the only means of discretion in terms of the actual amount a fine will cost you.

[spudchucka]

Lou, hows about you go get some finacial backing and turn into a full time lobiest at the Beehive, give you some where to target your campaign and maybe leave your dorky ideas off this forum. :soon:
I can see Lou and Kieth Locke being great mates.

[madandy]

There are two types of traffic "citations", (for want of a better word I'll use the USA lingo....

...sometimes cops will discount a speeding ticket by a few K's to give the driver a smaller fine and less demerits, thats about the only means of discretion in terms of the actual amount a fine will cost you.


Why would an officer do this? If the radar says 126 who are you to write 114 on the ticket for a friendly face or special sob story?

[FROSTY]

I would be happy with speeding tickets if the money was actually going back to the cops to pay for real policing
not going to pay for some fatcat politician to go buy another pair of undies

[Bob]

You would really hate what happens in the UK then. You'll probably know we have a lot of fixed position speed cameras in place.

They generate a lot of revenue (fair enough, if you speed through one, you deserve to get fined - they are bright yellow and have "speed camera" signs in place before you get to them. I could rant about how badly some of them are marked up, but that is another issue for another day).

So what happens to all that revenue? Fund more police officers perhaps? Nah. The money generated by the cameras goes to purchase... more speed cameras.

OK, some money has to be put aside for their upkeep and if a road meets the criteria then a new one goes in ... and they cost money. But surely the bulk of the money should be going into something other than just increasing the number of cameras being installed?

[madandy]

But that shows a true commitment to enforcing the speed limit.Soon there will be so many cameras you wont be able to speed at all, on those camera'd roads without getting your piccy taken, there by making every one stick to or below the posted limit.
Here the cameras are so far apart you can easily speed along for an hour or more in many places before the next income collection point.

[Mongoose]

Donations gratefully accepted.


Hopefully that was a genral request for finance Lou, I have a bit more discretion as to where my money goes, any lobiest that got my money would have a better thought process than yours seems to show at times.

[spudchucka]

Why would an officer do this? If the radar says 126 who are you to write 114 on the ticket for a friendly face or special sob story?
People bitch that cops never show discretion and now you are bagging cops for doing exactly that. Which way do you want it??

[Bob]

People bitch that cops never show discretion and now you are bagging cops for doing exactly that. Which way do you want it??

Give me an actual cop over a camera any day of the week. Camera doesn't take anything into consideration other than speed - so it is snowing, but the camera will still not be bothered unless you exceed the limit. Likewise, cameras don't pick up on bad driving/riding. Cops will.

[Gixxer 4 ever]

People bitch that cops never show discretion and now you are bagging cops for doing exactly that. Which way do you want it??
Hmmm Kind of put a dark cloud over my comments and questions. I still feel discretion is worth having. I am sure there are times that it would be just as good a result as the hard fast rules. I remember a good few years ago the local cop would give a kid a thick ear and a warning and nothing else was said but the message changed the way the kids behaved. They had respect as well. the kids that is.

[scumdog]

Hmmm Kind of put a dark cloud over my comments and questions. I still feel discretion is worth having. I am sure there are times that it would be just as good a result as the hard fast rules. I remember a good few years ago the local cop would give a kid a thick ear and a warning and nothing else was said but the message changed the way the kids behaved. They had respect as well. the kids that is.

Cops can't touch the little effrs now or it's off to the P.C.A, progresive society and all that..... :bleh:

[wkid_one]

Give me an actual cop over a camera any day of the week. Camera doesn't take anything into consideration other than speed - so it is snowing, but the camera will still not be bothered unless you exceed the limit. Likewise, cameras don't pick up on bad driving/riding. Cops will.
I agree - for example someone towing a Horse Float with two horses (good for say 2000kg easy) with a Nissan Primera at 105kph can blast past a speed camera in the pissing down rain at night - and the thing won't flash. You can go past a speed camera in a Holden HSV on a sunny morning, no traffic, dry as hell at 111kph - and be pinged. What is honestly more dangerous.

Tell me it isn't about revenue collection?

Before we start at the cops (who are only doing the job they are told to do) - the rules/environment need to be looked at.

Enuf said - i am sick of this tune.

Who read the article in the Dom Post about the intersection of Abel Smith and Cuba Street? They ticketed 71 drivers in a blitz. Why? Because they don't know how to deal with the 4 Stop Sign INtersection. This is fine - but the intersection is honestly FUCKED......all the stop signs are like 3m away from one another and it is hellishly busy, four cars arriving at the same time is common. What do they do - ticket the fuck out of everyone - rather than try and remedy the intersection - wonderful! There have apparently been a grand total of 5 (yes 5) accidents at that intersection - so who fucken cares!

Mr Police Person who lives near by obviously thought - well fuck me, here is an easy way to get my days quota!.