Who's the tosser running from the cops on TV3? (10 November)

[RT527]

I agree wholeheartedly. The draconian penalties for trivial and arbitrary matters is what induces people to run - it's fight or flight instinct. These fairly trivial matters can earn you an instant roadside loss of vehicle and license suspension for 28 days while at the same time actually crashing into another vehicle because you failed to give way at a stop sign earns virtually no discernable punishment whatsoever, often because you can't get a cop to attend (probably too busy having a car impounded for "unneccessary display of acceleration" where no damage was done).

The priorities are all completely fucked up - we can thank the knee jerk reaction government for the situation.

lol its funny that trivial offences only ever affect the ones who do something wrong.


These fairly trivial matters can earn you an instant roadside loss of vehicle and license suspension for 28 days while at the same time actually crashing into another vehicle because you failed to give way at a stop sign earns virtually no discernable punishment whatsoever

Thats because these soughts of accidents will always happen, they are not premeditated as such, just someone who is lacking a great deal of for thought and judgement and or driving skills( doesnt make it right and the book should be thrown at them).

Point is


often because you can't get a cop to attend (probably too busy having a car impounded for "unneccessary display of acceleration" where no damage was done).

This sought of driving and other more "trivial'' offences, again they are not trivial to me because I try not to break the law, my livelyhood and my families relys on my ability to have a licence, Are often premeditated or planned, or Wrong decisions based on adrenilan people know thats its wrong often, and will break the law because of peer pressure, and its no different here on KB, testosterone is a killer!.

[SVboy]

Do we have any fresh info on the runner? Scumdog, any inside info?

[FilthyLuka]

And thats the best answer you can come up with.
The person doing the runner is defineatly at fault , but when th police chase that person and dont back off when it gets out of control then that cop must take a portion of the blame, because simply put if the cop backs off a life can be saved , if you cant see that then your a bit fucken simple

Alright, this is just getting fucken stupid. I havent gotten red repped yet so i might aswell start.

That is some of the dumbest bullshit i have heard. Period.

None of the blame lies on the police, what so fucking ever. If the driver pulled his monkey arse over in the first place, no one would get hurt. It's a cops fucking job to uphold the law. This includes (and is not limited to):

1) Hounding down that motherfucker in a stolen car
2) Stopping said motherfucker from running away
3) Arresting aforementioned mother fucker
4) Having the car returned to its rightfull owner.

Sure, no one would get hurt if the cop just backed off, but then again, if you just handed over your wallet to that mugger there's no chance you would get stabbed. If you just went ahead and followed those nice grey uniformed soldiers to the camp, there's little chance they would pull out your golden molars.

And my person favourite: If americans just got out of the middle east, there's little chance their towers would have been blown up... oh wait, that one does kinda make sense :Oops:

It's not the cops fault if someone is hurt, its the bastard behind the wheel/handle bars. Its that simple...


because simply put if the cop backs off a life can be saved , if you cant see that then your a bit fucken simple

And if a cop pulls back then an innocent person's prized car WILL be chopped up, resold and used to fund something unholy


because simply put if the cop backs off a life can be saved

And if a cop pulls back, then the person behind the wheel willl continue driving "like he stole it" and probably lose it round a corner and fuck someone up


because simply put if the cop backs off a life can be saved

And if a cop backs of, that students car with no insurance on it is gone forever, now little johnny cant get to university and needs to go get a loan for a new car (and it begins)


because simply put if the cop backs off a life can be saved

And then every cop start pulling back early, crime increases, people start believing they can just get away with it (see the pun there, ;) ) and our insurance premiums and taxes go up to start paying for all the shit people are breaking.


because simply put if the cop backs off a life can be saved

And the cop that was chasing gets demoted for pulling back to early, and seeing as he was emotionally unstable to begin with, kills himself, ala harikiri, due to his shame. (okay, now im just being simple)


if you cant see that then your a bit fucken simple

Better that than be a complicated bastard! in my world 1 + 1 = 2 not 1 + 1 = fuk da popo, dey jus be hatin on ma shit cousin!



So, lets summarize. If you break the law, the cops are going to fuck your arse. If in the midst of this arse fucking avoidance, you break someone or their shit, its your problem. Not the cop who's just doing his job.

[Clivoris]

Would love to know if the turkey got caught yet.

[Sollyboy]

Would love to know if the turkey got caught yet.

Nah that would require good police work and we dont get that in NZ , those cunts were chasing for the fun of it

[Boob Johnson]

Nah that would require good police work and we dont get that in NZ , those cunts were chasing for the fun of it
You sir are a fucking moron, class A. You suit your job title well, im to meet someone in your line of work with a higher IQ than his shoe size :tugger:


It wouldn't matter that NZ has one of the most honest police forces in the world, fuckwits like you would complain if their bum was on fire :rolleyes:

[quickbuck]

... with a higher IQ than his shoe size


Umm, tht would be one of the smart ones then?

[RT527]

Nah that would require good police work and we dont get that in NZ , those cunts were chasing for the fun of it

So if i get this right.... your a middle aged Chimp who knocks on peoples doors and says gimmee your stuff ya loser cause you havnt paid anything......I suppose you do that for the fun of it?....

[Sollyboy]

So if i get this right.... your a middle aged Chimp who knocks on peoples doors and says gimmee your stuff ya loser cause you havnt paid anything......I suppose you do that for the fun of it?....

Its easier than welding which is what I used to do , you just have to be ready for all the machette and base ball bat weilding maniacs out there ,business is good there seems to be a record amount of broke cunts out there with cars and washing machines on tick , yeah its fun Id have to say.


As for the rest of this bullshit , If a cop came across a guy with a knife held to a ladys neck and the guy says to the cop do not take one step closer i mean it im serious and the cop knows hes serious and advances and the lady gets her throat cut and dies then whos to blame , and who could have done something about it by not advancing and negotiating even if the negotiating meant the guy with the knife gets away??
I see a car as a dangerous weapon and if its been used dangerously and the only way to stop it being used dangerously is to stop the pursuit then it makes sense to me to stop chasing, then catch the offender some other day then deal to him .
since the tightening of the driving rules and road side suspension for 28 days and the cops being used more as road side tax machines people have been doing more runners ,not necesarily dangerous people but normal people that have been pushed to far , the government and the cops need to reevaluate our human rights like the right to a fair trial before punishment is handed out , I dont believe a cop has the right to take my licence on the side of the road I believe I should have a fair trial and a fair time to prepare for that trial so why the fuck should I stop

[98tls]

And thats the best answer you can come up with.
The person doing the runner is defineatly at fault , but when th police chase that person and dont back off when it gets out of control then that cop must take a portion of the blame, because simply put if the cop backs off a life can be saved , if you cant see that then your a bit fucken simple I must be simple so..........i really need you to explain to me why you think that anyone but the guy there chasing is to take a portion of the blame,if you see someone breaking into your next door neighbours house and you ring the cops which when they arrive causes the guy to do a runner and in doing said runner he impales himself on something(if were lucky)you really want the cops to take a portion of the blame........prove my intuitition is right and say yes,then i will no longer bother reading anymore of your posts,well maybe when your older.

[98tls]

Its easier than welding which is what I used to do , you just have to be ready for all the machette and base ball bat weilding maniacs out there ,business is good there seems to be a record amount of broke cunts out there with cars and washing machines on tick , yeah its fun Id have to say.
Years back because of the way my shifts work i was approached and accepted the offer of a job doing the same,at the time i figured what the hell easy money,that it was but i chucked it away because i found that the guys i was working with were in most cases worse sacks of shit than the sacks of shit they were making a living from,funnily enough most of them were ex security guards etc which in itself reeks of loser,think i would love to be a cop but because ive been a scumbucket all my life this is about as close as i will get,most of em had some very deep lack of self esteem shit going on i guess and the job made em feel better about themselves..who knows.

[motorbyclist]

As for the rest of this bullshit , If a cop came across a guy with a knife held to a ladys neck and the guy says to the cop do not take one step closer i mean it im serious and the cop knows hes serious and advances and the lady gets her throat cut and dies then whos to blame , and who could have done something about it by not advancing and negotiating even if the negotiating meant the guy with the knife gets away??
I see a car as a dangerous weapon and if its been used dangerously and the only way to stop it being used dangerously is to stop the pursuit then it makes sense to me to stop chasing, then catch the offender some other day then deal to him .

ok then, lets say cops were no longer allowed to chase us.

now lets say a cop finds a drunk/racing/speeding/otherwise dangerous driver.
he flashes his lights.
car ignores him.
cop cant do shit, car then crashes, and all of a sudden people are asking why aren't these maniacs on the road stopped!

if the cops aren't allowed to chase cars, then why should they be allowed to chase any criminal? suddenly you can get away with fucking murder cause no-one's going to come after you

beleive it or not, it is not the punishment that discourages crime, but the certainity of your being caught. eg you'll do 60 kph in a 50 zone untill you see a cop car, then suddenly everyone slows to 50


and a hostage situation is quite different to a car, in that there is no negotiation once it's started, and there is lower risk of injury.

[FilthyLuka]

As for the rest of this bullshit , If a cop came across a guy with a knife held to a ladys neck and the guy says to the cop do not take one step closer i mean it im serious and the cop knows hes serious and advances and the lady gets her throat cut and dies then whos to blame

the guy who cut her throat....

[motorbyclist]

fucking taser!

[Sanx]

As much as I hate to admit it, Sollyboy and DaveReid do have a valid point...

The fundamental principle underlying New Zealand's justice system is that you are innocent until proven guilty. With the introduction of mandatory roadside suspensions for trivial offences (for instance, an 'unnecessary display of acceleration'), it's hardly surprising some people run when the blues'n'twos go off behind them.

Just consider, for example, what impact a mandatory 28-day impounding of a car can have on a family. If the main bread-winner loses both his licence and his vehicle, then that could affect his employment. Even if his job didn't directly rely on his ability to drive, not being able to get to and from work due to lack of transport could cause grave difficulty.

Now, should this suspension be imposed by a judge then the guilty party really doesn't have a leg to stand on. However, when the suspension and impounding can be imposed merely because a Police Officer believes on reasonable grounds that a person ... operated the vehicle in a race, or in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration, on a road (legislation here (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/libraries/contents/om_isapi.dll?clientID=171678039&hitsperheading=on&infobase=pal_statutes.nfo&jd=a1998-110%2fs.96&record={54605}&softpage=DOC), scroll down to section 96, paragraph 1A) there's far more grounds for the 'presumed guilty' party to feel aggrieved. There are a number worrying terms in this statement: believes, reasonable grounds, and unnecessary; they're all entirely subjective, and the imposition of a roadside suspension of licence and impounding of the car removes the presumption of innocence to which every New Zealander is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/libraries/contents/om_isapi.dll?clientID=171678039&hitsperheading=on&infobase=pal_statutes.nfo&jd=a1990-109%2fs.21&record={6A8B8}&softpage=DOC) (section 25, paragraph c).

Now, of course the majority of police pursuits do not result from the pursue-ee having rationally considered all the options, the relevant legislation and so on. No, as one of the resident officers pointed out, the vehicle in which the runner is attempted is often stolen. Or full of drugs. However, in cases where someone thinks they're going to lose their licence and vehicle simply because a cop merely has 'reasonable grounds to believe' they're done something, it's not surprising that some people do run. And no, this is not the Police's fault; it's the government's. They rammed through the Land Transport Amendment Act 2003 (the so-called Boy Racer Act) under urgency to tackle a problem that didn't actually require any additional legislation. And it isn't just boy racer offences that carry a 28 day get-fit-by-walking sentence. Anything more than 40kph over the limit and you're walking instantly. Sure, you can appeal the mandatory suspension, but even if your appeal's succesfull, you still have to wait up to give working days for your appeal to be considered. And then wait a further couple of days for your licence to be posted back out to you.

I'm not trying to say that running's justified; I'm saying that considering the lack of evidence needed to 'convict' someone and impound their vehicle, you can see why some people choose to take a chance and run. Sometimes they get away; usually they don't. Sometimes an accident will happen; usually they don't. But the fact remains that Police chases are dangerous and a significant number of injuries occur during them. I'm not saying this is the Police's fault, but the risk to the public should be considered before embarking on a chase, and as recent events have shown (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=179&objectid=10476607), the Police don't always consider them properly. It's also clear that certain people in authority are concerned about this too; the PCA is conducting a review of the rules governing Police chases, as a result of concerns about the number of deaths and serious injuries that occur during such chases.

[RT527]

Its easier than welding which is what I used to do , you just have to be ready for all the machette and base ball bat weilding maniacs out there ,business is good there seems to be a record amount of broke cunts out there with cars and washing machines on tick , yeah its fun Id have to say.

So by your definition that makes you a cunt...cause your just doing your job Eh?.earlier you said that the cops were chasing for the fun of it.....so what are they supposed to do when dispatched to a speeding motor vehicle say no i wont cause the public will call me a cunt if i do.

Ive said it before I dont give a toss , if your going to break a law then youve done so knowing the responsibilities that lie with that decision.

So if you get caught for sustained loss of traction its no ones fault....but your own.

Look i dont disagree with Some of the things you have said, but i just dont get it when you can sit there and defend crimminal action regardless of how trivial it is, it almost always leads on from a first time offence to multiple offences and gathering severity along the way ...a speeding ticket turns into 30 , a d.i.c turns into careless causing death/injury eventually.

I actually sound a bit biased when i read back over the last posts ive made...prolly cause I know some real good officers in my area that go out of there way for people, we have the mandatory 2 or 3 that are idiots, but over all they just seem to be doing a job which no one else wants to do, and i say thanks to the lot of them.....mind you on that reasoning , we have to have crims too ..else there be nothing for the cops to do.......

hey solly this isnt a go at you personally , i `m sorry if ive sounded like i am.

[MaxB]

As much as I hate to admit it, Sollyboy and DaveReid do have a valid point...

The fundamental principle underlying New Zealand's justice system is that you are innocent until proven guilty. With the introduction of mandatory roadside suspensions for trivial offences (for instance, an 'unnecessary display of acceleration'), it's hardly surprising some people run when the blues'n'twos go off behind them.



Good post.

The cops are not in the wrong for giving chase. Its their job to try and protect the public. It is the ridicluous state of our traffic laws that is to blame. The punishment far outweighs the crime in this case.

As an example, I know of a young local guy who is slowly turning into a crim. A few years back he bought his first car, a Japper sports car that was his pride and joy. He saved his cash for a year beforehand in a shitty job just to be able to afford it and to do the right thing with insurances & rego. Over a 2 year period he picked up minor speeding tickets like a 111 in a 100. But of course he got 20 points a pop. I have to say that he seemed like a careful and considerate driver to me. One night he was pulled up a few minutes after his curfew in a checkpoint 500m from his home. He was the sober driver in his mates car who was too pissed to drive. There was heaps wrong with the car and they threw the book at him.

Due to to a combination of foolishness and poor legal advice he ended up being banned. I guess for three months because we lost contact so it could have been longer. He sold his car to pay back his mate (why?) and lost his job as a result of the ban and moved away.

Now and again I see him at the shops. He is on the benefit, drives a death trap with different coloured and dented panels. And goes at top speed everywhere. And he is an extremely angry young person. I heard he never stops and does a runner every time. Most of the time he escapes. Even if he is caught what does he have left to lose?

To my knowledge he never got offered any advice that would have saved him. Why couldn't we set up traffic schools as an option that would knock 20 or 40 points off your demerits licence but only if you pass it? Make it cost the same as the fines so road users can choose to get back on track and gain more skills.

[Patrick]

Nah that would require good police work and we dont get that in NZ , those cunts were chasing for the fun of it


If a cop came across a guy with a knife held to a ladys neck and the guy says to the cop do not take one step closer i mean it im serious and the cop knows hes serious and advances and the lady gets her throat cut and dies then whos to blame ,

Duh....... the arsehole with the knife?:weird:

and who could have done something about it by not advancing and negotiating even if the negotiating meant the guy with the knife gets away??

and the cop does nothing and the arsewipe slits her throat... yeah, I can see the nice friendly headlines now....

I see a car as a dangerous weapon and if its been used dangerously and the only way to stop it being used dangerously is to stop the pursuit then it makes sense to me to stop chasing, then catch the offender some other day then deal to him .

Which is what happens. You hear about the crash that occurs because that is the one and only time in the pursuit that it got dangerous, perhaps??

since the tightening of the driving rules and road side suspension for 28 days and the cops being used more as road side tax machines people have been doing more runners ,not necesarily dangerous people but normal people that have been pushed to far ,
Bwahahahahahahahaha normal people don't run...

the government and the cops need to reevaluate our human rights like the right to a fair trial before punishment is handed out , I dont believe a cop has the right to take my licence on the side of the road I believe I should have a fair trial and a fair time to prepare for that trial so why the fuck should I stop

When your licence is taken, have a read on the back of the document, if you can read, that is... it outlines the appeal process.


With the introduction of mandatory roadside suspensions for trivial offences (for instance, an 'unnecessary display of acceleration'), it's hardly surprising some people run when the blues'n'twos go off behind them.

Just consider, for example, what impact a mandatory 28-day impounding of a car can have on a family. If the main bread-winner loses both his licence and his vehicle, then that could affect his employment. Even if his job didn't directly rely on his ability to drive, not being able to get to and from work due to lack of transport could cause grave difficulty.

Not too many "family men" having their cars taken off them... none in my time... As for not being able to get to work, they know the consequences, but do it anyhow... Choices....

However, when the suspension and impounding can be imposed merely because a Police Officer believes on reasonable grounds that a person ... operated the vehicle in a race, or in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration, on a road

Police usually see it happen... the general public have had a guts full and wanted the problem stopped. It hasn't worked. Impound followed by immediate crushing of cars might?

However, in cases where someone thinks they're going to lose their licence and vehicle simply because a cop merely has 'reasonable grounds to believe' they're done something, and have just watched them doing the burn out???it's not surprising that some people do run.

I'm not trying to say that running's justified; I'm saying that considering the lack of evidence needed to 'convict' someone and impound their vehicle, you can see why some people choose to take a chance and run. Sometimes they get away; usually they don't. Sometimes an accident will happen; usually they don't. But the fact remains that Police chases are dangerous and a significant number of injuries occur during them. I'm not saying this is the Police's fault, but the risk to the public should be considered before embarking on a chase......

Which is why there is a review going on as we speak...

[judecatmad]

As much as I hate to admit it, Sollyboy and DaveReid do have a valid point...

The fundamental principle underlying New Zealand's justice system is that you are innocent until proven guilty. With the introduction of mandatory roadside suspensions for trivial offences (for instance, an 'unnecessary display of acceleration'), it's hardly surprising some people run when the blues'n'twos go off behind them.

Just consider, for example, what impact a mandatory 28-day impounding of a car can have on a family. If the main bread-winner loses both his licence and his vehicle, then that could affect his employment. Even if his job didn't directly rely on his ability to drive, not being able to get to and from work due to lack of transport could cause grave difficulty.



Good point - the 'innocent until proven guilty' part.

So....instead of taking away the licence and impounding the vehicle, let's do what we do with someone who has, say, just shot and killed someone....that is, take them into custody and hold them until such time as they are allowed out on bail or they go to trial for said offence.

So instead of impounding said vehicle, we 'impound' the driver.

I'd say the consequences of that are actually worse than taking the car away, but if we are to start treating all crimes equally.....

Take away someone's licence to drive and their car, and they still have public transport to get them to their job (in most cases - and if they're rural and don't, or their job requires them to drive, then they were even more of a cock to run in the first place). Said lunatic driver would at least still be there for the care of their family as opposed to banged up in the nick.

The fact that a family's survival may be totally dependent on mum or dad's driving licence should not mean that joe public has to be held to ransom and allow lunatic driving to go unpunished. In fact, if lunatic driver's livelihood (and the feeding of their family) hinges on their driving licence, they're even more of a dickhead than the person who only puts strangers' lives at risk.

[RT527]

Good post.

The cops are not in the wrong for giving chase. Its their job to try and protect the public. It is the ridicluous state of our traffic laws that is to blame. The punishment far outweighs the crime in this case.

As an example, I know of a young local guy who is slowly turning into a crim. A few years back he bought his first car, a Japper sports car that was his pride and joy. He saved his cash for a year beforehand in a shitty job just to be able to afford it and to do the right thing with insurances & rego. Over a 2 year period he picked up minor speeding tickets like a 111 in a 100. But of course he got 20 points a pop. I have to say that he seemed like a careful and considerate driver to me. One night he was pulled up a few minutes after his curfew in a checkpoint 500m from his home. He was the sober driver in his mates car who was too pissed to drive. There was heaps wrong with the car and they threw the book at him.

Due to to a combination of foolishness and poor legal advice he ended up being banned. I guess for three months because we lost contact so it could have been longer. He sold his car to pay back his mate (why?) and lost his job as a result of the ban and moved away.

Now and again I see him at the shops. He is on the benefit, drives a death trap with different coloured and dented panels. And goes at top speed everywhere. And he is an extremely angry young person. I heard he never stops and does a runner every time. Most of the time he escapes. Even if he is caught what does he have left to lose?

To my knowledge he never got offered any advice that would have saved him. Why couldn't we set up traffic schools as an option that would knock 20 or 40 points off your demerits licence but only if you pass it? Make it cost the same as the fines so road users can choose to get back on track and gain more skills.


Bloody good post sir....only thing i can Add or think of is what the hell happened to his family, shouldnt the family be the one to support help and be there for him if he needed it?.

Even if one of my kids..(when the time comes)...steps out of line and has a run in with the law no matter what it is...I`ll be there for each and every one of them.

That sought of love lasts forever...regardless.

[Boob Johnson]

As much as I hate to admit it, Sollyboy and DaveReid do have a valid point...

The fundamental principle underlying New Zealand's justice system is that you are innocent until proven guilty. With the introduction of mandatory roadside suspensions for trivial offences (for instance, an 'unnecessary display of acceleration'), it's hardly surprising some people run when the blues'n'twos go off behind them.

Just consider, for example, what impact a mandatory 28-day impounding of a car can have on a family. If the main bread-winner loses both his licence and his vehicle, then that could affect his employment. Even if his job didn't directly rely on his ability to drive, not being able to get to and from work due to lack of transport could cause grave difficulty.

Now, should this suspension be imposed by a judge then the guilty party really doesn't have a leg to stand on. However, when the suspension and impounding can be imposed merely because a Police Officer believes on reasonable grounds that a person ... operated the vehicle in a race, or in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration, on a road (legislation here (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/libraries/contents/om_isapi.dll?clientID=171678039&hitsperheading=on&infobase=pal_statutes.nfo&jd=a1998-110%2fs.96&record={54605}&softpage=DOC), scroll down to section 96, paragraph 1A) there's far more grounds for the 'presumed guilty' party to feel aggrieved. There are a number worrying terms in this statement: believes, reasonable grounds, and unnecessary; they're all entirely subjective, and the imposition of a roadside suspension of licence and impounding of the car removes the presumption of innocence to which every New Zealander is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/libraries/contents/om_isapi.dll?clientID=171678039&hitsperheading=on&infobase=pal_statutes.nfo&jd=a1990-109%2fs.21&record={6A8B8}&softpage=DOC) (section 25, paragraph c).

Now, of course the majority of police pursuits do not result from the pursue-ee having rationally considered all the options, the relevant legislation and so on. No, as one of the resident officers pointed out, the vehicle in which the runner is attempted is often stolen. Or full of drugs. However, in cases where someone thinks they're going to lose their licence and vehicle simply because a cop merely has 'reasonable grounds to believe' they're done something, it's not surprising that some people do run. And no, this is not the Police's fault; it's the government's. They rammed through the Land Transport Amendment Act 2003 (the so-called Boy Racer Act) under urgency to tackle a problem that didn't actually require any additional legislation. And it isn't just boy racer offences that carry a 28 day get-fit-by-walking sentence. Anything more than 40kph over the limit and you're walking instantly. Sure, you can appeal the mandatory suspension, but even if your appeal's succesfull, you still have to wait up to give working days for your appeal to be considered. And then wait a further couple of days for your licence to be posted back out to you.

I'm not trying to say that running's justified; I'm saying that considering the lack of evidence needed to 'convict' someone and impound their vehicle, you can see why some people choose to take a chance and run. Sometimes they get away; usually they don't. Sometimes an accident will happen; usually they don't. But the fact remains that Police chases are dangerous and a significant number of injuries occur during them. I'm not saying this is the Police's fault, but the risk to the public should be considered before embarking on a chase, and as recent events have shown (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=179&objectid=10476607), the Police don't always consider them properly. It's also clear that certain people in authority are concerned about this too; the PCA is conducting a review of the rules governing Police chases, as a result of concerns about the number of deaths and serious injuries that occur during such chases.
I 100% agree, I said the same thing a few pages back about the punishment doesn't fit the crime & is the cause of all these runners, but that isn't what Sollyboy is crapping on about he is trying to say its the cops fault if someone is hurt & they shouldn't chase at all. Your right the law is the ass here not the long arm of it. As soon as they remove these over the top boy racer laws ie take away your car then the runners will reduce in numbers greatly. In Australia just recently they bought in a law where they can crush your car & you they make you watch them do it. I mean that really is pathetic if you ask me, extremely draconian & certainly going to add weight to anyone thinking about doing a runner.

[scumdog]

. In Australia just recently they bought in a law where they can crush your car & you they make you watch them do it. I mean that really is pathetic if you ask me, extremely draconian & certainly going to add weight to anyone thinking about doing a runner.

Sooo, to reverse your theory:

Don't inflict any penalty and they'll never do runners eh?

Novel idea!

[Boob Johnson]

Sooo, to reverse your theory:

Don't inflict any penalty and they'll never do runners eh?

Novel idea!
Na not a reversal just a punishment that fits the crime is all, it is completely out of whack with similar crime

[Disco Dan]

Na not a reversal just a punishment that fits the crime is all, it is completely out of whack with similar crime

So what would you suggest? Im not saying I disagree just that fining someone does not work either. We all know how easy it is to get away with thousands of dollars worth of fines...

[Boob Johnson]

So what would you suggest? Im not saying I disagree just that fining someone does not work either. We all know how easy it is to get away with thousands of dollars worth of fines...Doesn't work? What would you base that assumption on?

[paturoa]

How about, stopping and taking the consequences of your choices?

Humans come in 3 shapes....

1) a percentage of the population out there who under no circumstances would ever be runners.

2) a small percentage who are habitual runners

3) the group in the middle, who will go either way depending on the situation. It would be a situational value call, and a key driver is what is deemed acceptable or the "norm".

Note this appies to every situation you can think of. You can replace runners with speeding, red light running, theft, taking pens home from work, etc etc.

So lets ignore group one.

Will penalties influence the decision of group 2s to do runners, no. So Group 2 need consequences that remove them from the future situation. Harsh repeat offender penalties would be just the ticket.

And for group 3, I think the penalty should be raised considerably for runner offences, to the extent that it just isn't worth the risk, and "stopping and taking the consequences of your choices" is the logical, least pain, choice

The net effect of backing off runner persuits is actually encouraging Group 2s to do runners because of the belief that they will get away. The only logical oucome is more runners.

More runners = more carnage = bad.

[pritch]

Doesn't work? What would you base that assumption on?

Ummm Have you been overseas? We just had an extensive (and probably completely ineffective) ad campaign on radio and TV to get people to pay their fines.

There are many millions of dollars worth of fines unpaid and the miscreants have no intention of paying them. I was talking to someone recently who owes $12,000. She has no way of paying that and will probably wind up doing PD time calculated at an astronomical hourly rate.

The fines only work for the idiots like you and me who pay them, and those who have something to lose? Those who have bugger-all, and care less, just do not pay and they basically get away with it...

[Boob Johnson]

There are many millions of dollars worth of fines unpaidAnd how many millions HAVE been paid :msn-wink: :whistle:






The fines only work for the idiots like you and me who pay them, and those who have something to lose? Those who have bugger-all, and care less, just do not pay and they basically get away with it...So we should change the law to suit the minority? :confused:

[RT527]

So we should change the law to suit the minority? :confused:

Yeah but its the habitual minority that owes the millions...go figure!

[Jantar]

A conversation among a group of middle aged - old farts recently (I was the only biker) revealed that running is becoming more common in the 50 - 70 age group. The sole reason given is that they have too many demerit points, and a single speeding ticket will mean loss of licence. Therefore why not run? If they get away the licence is safe, if they don't then the penalty is the same. ie loss of licence. Fines didn't even come into it.

So maybe our demerit system is too harsh on simple offences, and not harsh enough on serious ones.

[Sollyboy]

Good point - the 'innocent until proven guilty' part.

So....instead of taking away the licence and impounding the vehicle, let's do what we do with someone who has, say, just shot and killed someone....that is, take them into custody and hold them until such time as they are allowed out on bail or they go to trial for said offence.

So instead of impounding said vehicle, we 'impound' the driver.

I'd say the consequences of that are actually worse than taking the car away, but if we are to start treating all crimes equally.....

Take away someone's licence to drive and their car, and they still have public transport to get them to their job (in most cases - and if they're rural and don't, or their job requires them to drive, then they were even more of a cock to run in the first place). Said lunatic driver would at least still be there for the care of their family as opposed to banged up in the nick.

The fact that a family's survival may be totally dependent on mum or dad's driving licence should not mean that joe public has to be held to ransom and allow lunatic driving to go unpunished. In fact, if lunatic driver's livelihood (and the feeding of their family) hinges on their driving licence, they're even more of a dickhead than the person who only puts strangers' lives at risk.

Murder is not even close to doing 141kmh so why would both need to have you being arrested , you seem to lack balance .
btw chris kahui seems to have a bit of freedom considering the crime , lucky for him he wasnt speeding

[Boob Johnson]

Yeah but its the habitual minority that owes the millions...go figure!
And how much actually gets paid each year? I think you will find it far out ways the amount out standing, that is my point. You can't legislate for everyone, impossible. So to impose draconian laws in comparison with other much greater offences seems, well.........draconian.



Kiddy fiddlers don't get their tackle chopped off so why should someone have their vehicle confiscated or worse crushed.





If I passed a patrol car doing an excessive speed (lets say 180 odd for arguments sake) & were met with the disco lights as long as the conditions suited I would consider maintaining my speed until a turn off presented itself.

[motorbyclist]

The fact that a family's survival may be totally dependent on mum or dad's driving licence should not mean that joe public has to be held to ransom and allow lunatic driving to go unpunished. In fact, if lunatic driver's livelihood (and the feeding of their family) hinges on their driving licence, they're even more of a dickhead than the person who only puts strangers' lives at risk.

and agin it comes back to the simple truth:

dont do the crime and you wont do the time

how can this be so hard for some to understand? sure taking your ride is bit inconvienient - so don't do burnouts and keep you speeds reasonable!

and as paturoa said earlier - if they made the punishment for running more severe than that of stopping, alot of people would try stopping! over in the states you get jail time for running - and not just 30 days; think over 12 months

similarly car theft in the states carries something like 7 years - compare that to our 3 months and it's no wonder our vehicle theft is so high!

[Katman]

To the moderators that I chose to vent my spleen at the other night I unreservedly apologise.

To those on here that think that the loss of innocent lives on our roads should just be seen as 'collateral damage', I would question your sense of ethics.

[RT527]

we all have rights in NZ ....I have the right to not run from the cops, i have the right to go home at the end of the day and tell my wife I love her...I have the right to not have my stuff stolen....you all talk about the rights of the crim ...well boo fucking hoo I think my rights are more important than your oh shit I'm going to get caught i better run from the fuzz and risk killing someone cause i don't want to conform , then you'll blame the cops for my child being killed that you ran down at 200 clicks all the while using mine and everyone else's taxes to pay for your care after you binned it so you can get your licence back after 3 months of a 12 month sentence and do it all over again.:niceone::chase::doctor:

[westie]

Good perspective bro.(RT527)
I'm a little bit of a hipocrite but I definatelty agree.

[Genestho]

Interesting thread, I guess the rider wont be coming forward in this thread?!

agreed to that last statement... what about the rights of the victims, the rights of the crims are shitting (scuse my language Im a little wound up:eek5: today after reading two more deaths to drink driving over weekend!!) their consequences all over this country. Without rehashing many headlines over this last year - The NZ way is a namby pamby joke!
There are no rights for victims, and no true consequences!
Our justice system sucks!!
Someone said something about Helen Clarkes Paradise City - aint that the truth!?
Ahem thanks for the blow out - Anyway Ill let you all get back onto topic...:D

[scrivy]

Love ya sig line TGW!! So true. And you did!!

[Patrick]

So what would you suggest? Im not saying I disagree just that fining someone does not work either. We all know how easy it is to get away with thousands of dollars worth of fines...

They don't go away though... watch this space...


Murder is not even close to doing 141kmh so why would both need to have you being arrested , you seem to lack balance .
btw chris kahui seems to have a bit of freedom considering the crime , lucky for him he wasnt speeding

No one gets locked up for doing 141... or are you talking about 141 in a 50 zone?


To the moderators that I chose to vent my spleen at the other night I unreservedly apologise.

To those on here that think that the loss of innocent lives on our roads should just be seen as 'collateral damage', I would question your sense of ethics.

You put me into your "lack of ethic" basket...( a nicer way of putting it, now...!!) it was not what I was saying...

The point was clear, and as surprising to you as it seems to be, is agreed with by all Including me... any death over a speeding ticket, a licence breach, a stolen car, whatever, is not worth it.

What you are implying is that Police should not pursue anyone for any reason whatsoever. That is the part that is hard to follow......

[Sanx]

The point was clear, and as surprising to you as it seems to be, is agreed with by all Including me... any death over a speeding ticket, a licence breach, a stolen car, whatever, is not worth it.

What you are implying is that Police should not pursue anyone for any reason whatsoever. That is the part that is hard to follow......

Having a rule that says never chase anyone is patently ridiculous. However, the current situation is exacerbated by draconian penalties for minor traffic infringements and among the boy racer and (to a lesser extent) biker crowd, a thorough dislike for traffic cops because of how they go about enforcing the draconian rules.

Chasing someone who doesn't stop for a $80 speeding ticket is simply ridiculous. Get the plate, and deal with it later. If someone's run, they'll run until they can't see you any more and then slow down, trying to look inconspicuous. Why exacerbate the situation further? However, if it were another Chris Kahui that was being chased, the crime committed is bad enough already. The risk he poses to the public is worth the risk of the chase. There has to be a line drawn somewhere.

In London, when a chase involving the Police helicopter gets near Heathrow, the chopper pilot has to radio air traffic control for permission to enter Heathrow's restricted air-space. Air Traffic Control has been known to ask what the person being chased has done, and then they make their decision to close down Heathrow approach based upon that. Considering the risks Police chases pose to all concerned, perhaps having someone who's dedicated to making those decisions available by radio before any chase progresses for more than a minute or so would be a good idea.

[scumdog]

Chasing someone who doesn't stop for a $80 speeding ticket is simply ridiculous. Get the plate, and deal with it later. If someone's run, they'll run until they can't see you any more and then slow down, trying to look inconspicuous. Why exacerbate the situation further? However, if it were another Chris Kahui that was being chased, the crime committed is bad enough already. The risk he poses to the public is worth the risk of the chase. There has to be a line drawn somewhere..

As has been said about a zillion times: how is the cop to know the guy is only running from 'just' the $80 ticket and not something more serious? Like he's in a stolen car?.

Or how does the cop know the plate is kosher? (Have you seen how many vehicles involved with say petrol-station drive-offs have false or altered plates?)

Your solution is simplistic to say the least.

[motorbyclist]

seriously, if the cops were unable to chase me i would have saved myself $170 today, but i know they will and it's not worth the risk.(edit: and now i think about it, had i run and tried to use rush hour traffic to get away, my probable route would've gone within 500m of a major cop station, and then into the side/rear/front of a car...)

just had to pull over and take it:buggerd::weep:

that said, next cop will be a bit harder to stop for unless some demerit points start disappearing

or, i could behave... yeah, sounds like a better solution doesn't it?

[Sanx]

As has been said about a zillion times: how is the cop to know the guy is only running from 'just' the $80 ticket and not something more serious? Like he's in a stolen car?.

Or how does the cop know the plate is kosher? (Have you seen how many vehicles involved with say petrol-station drive-offs have false or altered plates?)

Your solution is simplistic to say the least.

I agree, it's far from perfect. The reason I've always been against the death penalty is that it's impossible to release someone from the grave when they're later on found to be innocent. In a way, this is a little similar. Given that there's the chance that a chase will end up in a fatal accident (the fatality not cecessarily the person running), is it worth always chasing on the off-chance they've done something more than go 10kph over the limit? Even if a number of the people being pursued go, I would have thought that it's better than someone being killed as a direct result of a chase.

If I could come up with a better idea, I'd do it though.

[motorbyclist]

I agree, it's far from perfect. The reason I've always been against the death penalty is that it's impossible to release someone from the grave when they're later on found to be innocent.

just a side note, another reason to not have the death penalty is that those who expect to receive it have nothing to lose in their attempt to flee. as such we have situations in the states where "death by cop" now even has an acronym....

[Reckless]

F$ck it! ZERO Tolerance!

How many High jackings are there now days, none! ZERO Tolerance!

If they know there's no way of getting away and every crime they commit during that chase will be brought to bear with the full weight of the law. IE hurt someone and its attempted murder, kill some one and its premeditated murder. They make the choice when they put their foot down. There'll be still some that run but the fucktard with the neighbours TV in the back or the 70 year old with to many demerits will be much more likely to stop. At the moment its well known go over 140 and your home free especially if the choppers busy somewhere else. You immedialty prononce yourself Guilty of everything by deciding to run.

Controversial opinion I know and I'm bracing myself for the barrage but I'm allowed to have one!:Playnice:

Its probably been said already I didn't read the thread

[Sanx]

F$ck it! ZERO Tolerance!

How many High jackings are there now days, none! ZERO Tolerance!

If they know there's no way of getting away and every crime they commit during that chase will be brought to bear with the full weight of the law. IE hurt someone and its attempted murder, kill some one and its premeditated murder. They make the choice when they put their foot down. There'll be still some that run but the fucktard with the neighbours TV in the back or the 70 year old with to many demerits will be much more likely to stop. At the moment its well known go over 140 and your home free especially if the choppers busy somewhere else. You immedialty prononce yourself Guilty of everything by deciding to run.

Controversial opinion I know and I'm bracing myself for the barrage but I'm allowed to have one!:Playnice:

Its probably been said already I didn't read the thread

And when the cops chasing hit and injure or hit and kill someone?

[Reckless]

I know Sanx that's a tough one but hopefully the police are well enough trained and will get our support. The problem is now that they are always in the wrong, the police always become the victim in a chase situation. By people who can't see the greater good.
There was tremendous risk in the SAS (or whoever) attacking those High jackers in those planes but the criminals got the message. God forbid any of mine or yours get caught in the crossfire but sometimes there have to be sacrifices made for substantial gain.

I say again, its a tough one, and a matter of opinion! But when do we say no! They are already killing us when running or choosing to kill (or commit crime) then run because know they'll get away.
My opinion only!

[motorbyclist]

well that's exactly it isn't it?

if there is no chance of being caught, why not go hit and run?

sure the cops may cause a small number of accidents, but i bet it's much less than what would happen if they didn't chase people

there'd be idiots like me left right and centre weaving between cars at 150kph on my way to/from uni/work every day

ramp up a footpath, hit a few kids, keep driving, no worries

maybe hook up some bullbars so my car doesn't get dented?

won't need a number plate, as they can't chase me for not having it, and without it i'm untraceable (and they ruin the aesthetics of my vehicle too)

and being the idiot i am, myself and others being hurt in a crash isn't a consideration at all cause i'm such a good driver/rider and don't crash on the track so roads shouldn't be any different

hell, maybe i could see if i can catch cyclists on my bonnet, or knock bikers off but leave the bike still riding?



ok, so now do we see why police need to chase people? if they didn't it would be chaos on the roads - and it's bad enough as it is!

law enforcement saves many more lives than it costs. think it the lesser of two evils

but of course, if you have a suggestion to stop people crashing/speeding/failing to follow road rules then by all mean say so.

maybe mandatory engine immobilisers? while it would stop theifs, it still wouldn't entirely work cause it's largely the same people without wofs, regos or licences that do the runners in the first place. (kinda like microchipping dogs - it's the illegal ones that won't get chipped and cause the majority of problems, not that a chip will stop a dog attacking an intruder)

[davereid]

As has been said about a zillion times: how is the cop to know the guy is only running from 'just' the $80 ticket and not something more serious? Like he's in a stolen car?.

Or how does the cop know the plate is kosher? (Have you seen how many vehicles involved with say petrol-station drive-offs have false or altered plates?)

Your solution is simplistic to say the least.

Its true that the car might be stolen, the driver might be wanted for other crimes or have driven away without paying for his petrol.

But they are all pretty unimportant issues really.

To the cynical observer, stolen property is about as low it gets on the police interest list unless there is an adreniline pumped car chase to be enjoyed.

I can just imagine police comms

"Comms here - anyone able to investigate a break in at a little old ladys house ? - over"

....silence.... silence...silence...

"Comms here - anyone able to assist with a subaru spotted without a WOF, failed to stop on Main St for Car 29, heading south"

"Car 23 here - I can assist"
"Car 49 here - me to"
"Dogs here - Main St you say ?"

"Comms to car 29 - safety status report please ?"

"Yep safe as houses comms, doing 140 through the mall, but I've done my driving refresher course and my lights are on"

[The Stranger]

is it worth always chasing on the off-chance they've done something more than go 10kph over the limit?

Isn't it reasonable to assume that if their only crime is 10kph over the limit they would stop anyway, thus it is in all likelihood something worse that has induced them to run?

We all know that a burglar has no chance of getting caught unless he is speeding from the scene. Please don't take this slim chance from us.

[spudchucka]

We all know that a burglar has no chance of getting caught unless he is speeding from the scene.

None of them were speeding when I found their fingerprints though??

Don't forget that the law "requires" you to stop for the police, by running you make yourself a legitimate target that needs to be apprehended.

[Sanx]

but of course, if you have a suggestion to stop people crashing/speeding/failing to follow road rules then by all mean say so.

maybe mandatory engine immobilisers? while it would stop theifs, it still wouldn't entirely work cause it's largely the same people without wofs, regos or licences that do the runners in the first place. (kinda like microchipping dogs - it's the illegal ones that won't get chipped and cause the majority of problems, not that a chip will stop a dog attacking an intruder)

Oh - I've got plenty of solutions. I've got one that'd decrease the road toll down to next to nothing (one, max) whilst eliminating congestion.

Unfortunately, banning everyone from the road other than me might prove a little unworkable.

[vifferman]

As has been said about a zillion times: how is the cop to know the guy is only running from 'just' the $80 ticket and not something more serious? Like he's in a stolen car?
Eggs Zachary. :yes:
It's not normal for someone to "go for it" when they see a cop, so it's understandable for the cop to go, "WTF? Summat's up here!" Stolen car? Drugs in the glovebox? Proceeds of a robbery in the boot?

It's a pretty dumb thing to do, and I suspect some runners are just like their lesser cousins, the red light runners: it's premeditated. I nearly got taken out by a car at the end of our street on the weekend. One came through from the left, just before the light went green, and the other from the right, just after it went green. Both obviously had decided they were going, even if the light changed, and made no effort to stop. Luckily for me, I was in the car, turning left, and I took off slowly as I had it in neutral. If I was on the bike, I would've been turning right, and been quicker off the line. I usually check before I take off, but if I hadn't, I would've been in a bad way, as the car coming from the right was doing around 60-65km/h.

So I suspect most 'runners' premeditate it too. When I posted a few weeks ago about getting a ticket a couple of blocks from home, and said, "I should've done a runner", it was just venting. I did consider ducking down a side street or opening the throttle, but at that stage I wasn't 100% sure if I'd actually been speeding, and if I was, there was still a slim chance of not being ticketed. I dismissed the option when my imagination kicked in and I thought about hiding down a side street and the police finding me there. Not a good look. And about opening up till I saw them in my mirrors then buttoning off again: what if I hadn't been pinged for speeding, and they pinged me before I braked?

Of course, none of this would've even been a remote possibility of an option, if the crusade against speeding (and the punishments meted out) hadn't served to criminalise what is actually an extremely commonplace thing that almost everyone does: not adhering strictly to the speed limits. Even the cop I spoke to this morning (a GSXR1000 owner) admitted he speeds on his bike, and was worried about getting pinged one day.

Don't forget that the law "requires" you to stop for the police, by running you make yourself a legitimate target that needs to be apprehended.
Yeah.
And I have it on good authority that being wrestled to the ground and handcuffed is not very pleasant.

[davereid]

I have it on good authority that being wrestled to the ground and handcuffed is not very pleasant.

Dunno... I don't stop to find out

[Patrick]

is it worth always chasing on the off-chance they've done something more than go 10kph over the limit?

Why would we pursue anyone doing more than 10k over the limit? If they choose to floor it, it is not 10k over anymore, is it?


Isn't it reasonable to assume that if their only crime is 10kph over the limit they would stop anyway, thus it is in all likelihood something worse that has induced them to run?

Reasonable indeed!!!

We all know that a burglar has no chance of getting caught unless he is speeding from the scene. Please don't take this slim chance from us.

Yeah.... we NEVER catch burglars unless they are speeding at over 10kmph over the limit... :zzzz::zzzz::zzzz::zzzz:

[judecatmad]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4290472a10.html

**sigh**

The Police simply can't win - they get criticised for pursuing and now you can guarantee they'll be blamed for this jerkwad's attitude......

[motorbyclist]

so basically, the little shit crashed even after the cops stopped chasing

it's episodes like that where a fatal crash (for the runner) is almost desirable

[vifferman]

Dunno... I don't stop to find out
You may not have a choice about that.

[Max Preload]

Here's (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10479616) some of those professional drivers in action.

[spudchucka]

Here's (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10479616) some of those professional drivers in action.

One of them. Don't drag the other 7999 of them into it.

[RT527]

Yeah why is it that when a cop makes a mistake...Alledgedly, its a heinous crime, yet a camper van takes out 3 motorcyclists yet its just an accident?.

You guys need to pull ya heads in a little and remember that ''there go I but for the Grace of God''!!!!

[Boob Johnson]

Yeah why is it that when a cop makes a mistake...Alledgedly, its a heinous crime, yet a camper van takes out 3 motorcyclists yet its just an accident?.

You guys need to pull ya heads in a little and remember that ''there go I but for the Grace of God''!!!!
Reckon! Police are humans too. People are quick to mouth off about them, you need a good kick in the backside if you ask me :spanking:

[JimO]

Yeah why is it that when a cop makes a mistake...Alledgedly, its a heinous crime, yet a camper van takes out 3 motorcyclists yet its just an accident?.

You guys need to pull ya heads in a little and remember that ''there go I but for the Grace of God''!!!!

did the camper van take them out or was it the other way round??

[Max Preload]

One of them. Don't drag the other 7999 of them into it.

The point is the sort of dangerous manouvres that are pulled in the interest of issuing a invoice for a victimless and very minor infringement. I've nearly been collected by a cop car pulling a u-turn and last year had one fail to give way when I was turning into my street into my street etc. so I'd suggest shit driving from cops is not as uncommon as you'd have us believe.

A couple of months back I was approaching a T-junction with a green light and had a marked Police car run his red light, no lights, no siren and TALKING ON A BLOODY CELLPHONE! He went around the wrong side of the island to turn left. I was so stunned I forgot to get the registration. Not that it'd have made any difference. I mean, who you gonna call? Might as well be f'n Ghostbusters for all the good it'd do!

[RT527]

did the camper van take them out or was it the other way round??

yup granted that not knowing what happened and not being there I prolly shouldnt have commented , yet Was only using it as an example...it happens all the time on this site everything else is always an accident , except when the police are involved, or its always the police`s fault no matter that someone is usually or possible in the wrong to start with!,...that sir was my point.


And after watching the news and looking at the marks on the road it looks to me as if the camper has run off the shoulder and hes hauled on the steering to get it back thus unbalancing the camper and causing it to rollonto its side in an arc into the path of the other vehicles.


Only an observation tho and not a true reflection on what may have happened!.

[The Pastor]

did they catch the guy on the tl?

[motorbyclist]

Here's (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10479616) some of those professional drivers in action.

so, oncoming bike speeds past cop, cop does u-turn and two oncoming bikes smack into him...

now i think there's a good chance the other two bikes were speeding too, but the fact is that the cop clearly didn't look or he would've waited to get the speed of the next two bikes, and definetly wouldn't have pulled the u-turn

so the cop has made a mistake that you'd expect from some blind cager, not the highway patrol - perhaps he's a little too keen to give out tickets:nono:, or maybe even hoping for a chase?

i sure do hope he only represents a very small percentage of the police force

[Max Preload]

...perhaps he's a little too keen to give out tickets:nono:, or maybe even hoping for a chase?

Perish the thought... :lol: