Police blast speed cameras. [Archive]

scumdog

12th April 2008, 10:56

Just in from the west island (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23520329-2862,00.html). More than 70% of Victorian Police believe speed cameras and red light cameras are more about revenue-raising than safety.

Interesting read. I wonder how our own Police force feels? [not that they could comment honestly on KB without the wraith of senior commanders!]

All I can say is they wouldn't make money from ME!

The speed-cameras?
Mehh, never worried about them - but never received a speed-camera ticket yet so that may change.

Red-light cameras?
Go for it - just wish the penalty was higher and if you get sprung by one of them? - you deserve to contribute to the Gov't coffers imho.

But on the whole I seem them a tax on the brainless/dopey/careless drivers..:wait:

Drew

12th April 2008, 11:09

But on the whole I seem them a tax on the brainless/dopey/careless drivers..:wait:

Fair call.

I've had one speed camera fine in my driving career, from not paying attention rather than intentionaly speeding. It's just as bad as it begs the question, what else was I not seeing?

SixPackBack

12th April 2008, 11:14

Edbear

12th April 2008, 11:29

...But on the whole I seem them a tax on the brainless/dopey/careless drivers..:wait:

Agree, even though I have had one speed camera fine for 61 in a 50 and a recent 112km/h fine. All I can say in my case is that I was watching the road and other traffic instead of my speedo, and both tickets were on downhill sections in automatics...

Fair call.

I've had one speed camera fine in my driving career, from not paying attention rather than intentionaly speeding. It's just as bad as it begs the question, what else was I not seeing?

Same here, see reply above...

Got to admit scumdog the articles claim that the Victorian coppers felt red light runners where revenue generators, and not a serious threat is more than a little supprising.
Maybe 70% do not ride a motorcycle?

Yeah, I tend to agree here, too. I have little sympathy for red-light runners, though confess to being a bit cheeky once or twice late at night with no other traffic in sight either coming or going, ie: I was the only car around... Even so, I usually wait and never proceed on a red if there is any other vehicle in sight.

Drew

12th April 2008, 11:33

All I can say in my case is that I was watching the road and other traffic instead of my speedo, and both tickets were on downhill sections in automatics...

I always giggle when people make this comment, as it takes no time to glance at the speedo on a regular bassis. Dont get me wrong at all, I have looked down to find I was goin faster than I thought, but a feesable excuse it is not.

I'm pretty sure, that if cops actually hired shrewd lawyers to deal with traffic issues, they could infact charge you with careless driving as soon as you proclaimed to not paying attention to the speedo, and make it STICK.

scracha

12th April 2008, 12:25

Gimmie cameras any day of the week over the under trained fascist revenue collectors currently running around in HP cars.

Drew

12th April 2008, 12:32

Gimmie cameras any day of the week over the under trained fascist revenue collectors currently running around in HP cars.

You know broad generalisations are a bad idea and turn threads to shit Steve.:jerry:

johan

12th April 2008, 12:43

Agree, even though I have had one speed camera fine for 61 in a 50 and a recent 112km/h fine. All I can say in my case is that I was watching the road and other traffic instead of my speedo, and both tickets were on downhill sections in automatics...

Being a private pilot, this would be a funny excuse if I did a bad landing.
"I didn't watch my speed and stalled because I was going downhill trying to aim for the runway while listening to the radio comm."

It's indeed possible, and necessary, to keep your needle on a given speed while doing other things. It's just practise and concentration it takes. :)

My only ticket so far was on an empty street in a suburb, doing 62 in a 50 zone on my way to a lunch meeting. Pretty hard to blame anything but myself and lack of concentration.

scumdog

12th April 2008, 12:44

Gimmie cameras any day of the week over the under trained fascist revenue collectors currently running around in HP cars.

Yeah, cameras show way more discretion...

Finn

12th April 2008, 13:03

It's just as bad as it begs the question, what else was I not seeing?

The speed camera.

c4.

12th April 2008, 16:13

Wonder what it would be like if , on the amber, paint bombs started shooting across the intersection. :ar15:
I bet that a ticket/prison for yellow paint on your vehicle would stop red light runners, and maybe a percentage of bikers would still be here today.
2cents

Edbear

12th April 2008, 20:57

... I have looked down to find I was goin faster than I thought, but a feesable excuse it is not...

Perzackly! Fortunately you weren't pinged for it. Unfortunately, I was...

Being a private pilot, this would be a funny excuse if I did a bad landing.
"I didn't watch my speed and stalled because I was going downhill trying to aim for the runway while listening to the radio comm."

It's indeed possible, and necessary, to keep your needle on a given speed while doing other things. It's just practise and concentration it takes. :)

My only ticket so far was on an empty street in a suburb, doing 62 in a 50 zone on my way to a lunch meeting. Pretty hard to blame anything but myself and lack of concentration.

Ummm! I don't think the flying comparison is valid, as I'm always concentrating on my driving and in any situation calling for full concentration it gets mine. However, your last point is quite correct. See my response to Drew, above...

JMemonic

17th April 2008, 07:35

Red light cameras are great tools, unfortunately under utilised, I could think of several intersections that could do with one, the also should get the photo from the front and rear in ans attempt to show the driver, this would turn them into a road safety device. If it can be proven this ways a particular driver is a regular red light runner the loose they privilege to drive until such time as they can prove they know the difference between the colours of the lights.

Speed cameras on the other hand are revenue gathering, plain and simple, when they get hidden behind bushes etc they have no effect on motorists behaviour, how often does one observer the patrol car on the side of the road all cars slow down effect, that is more of a road safety thing.

How about we don't ban radar detectors instead they are encouraged, and cheap filed generators are fitted to mobile mock police cars that could be dotted around the country, then eventually we could work on filling those cars with warranted officers who's duties relate solely to traffic enforcement, leaving sworn police to do the serious work of dealing with "real" crime.

Drew

17th April 2008, 10:13

Perzackly! Fortunately you weren't pinged for it. Unfortunately, I was...

But I wasn't paying attention, so I would have deserved a ticket if pulled up for it, is what I was trying to say.

Coyote

17th April 2008, 10:32

Yeah, cameras show way more discretion...
Totally agree, they don't throw in breach of licence fines :whistle:

Ting Tong

18th April 2008, 07:43

Speed cameras on the other hand are revenue gathering, plain and simple, when they get hidden behind bushes etc they have no effect on motorists behaviour, how often does one observer the patrol car on the side of the road all cars slow down effect, that is more of a road safety thing.

Oh please, same old moaning that cameras are revenue gathering. They are positioned in areas where there have been accidents or even fatals. The whole idea is to get drivers to slow down all the time not just when they see a camera or Police car.

How about we don't ban radar detectors instead they are encouraged, and cheap filed generators are fitted to mobile mock police cars that could be dotted around the country, then eventually we could work on filling those cars with warranted officers who's duties relate solely to traffic enforcement, leaving sworn police to do the serious work of dealing with "real" crime.

What do you think traffic cops do? we are dedicated traffic officers who ARE real cops and not just to enforce traffic. The old days werent good as the old traffic cops werent allowed to deal with REAL crime as you put it. Have you ever had to deal with a fatal where speeding was an issue? have you ever had to inform the family of a death and see the life drain out of their eyes? How often does someone die as a result of a burglary or theft, the real crimes you speak of?? Luckily you dont have to deal with all of this, we do! its nice to sit in your warm home bitching about everything but you would soon change your tune should you have to deal with all of the mayhem that drivers and riders cause! and not just to the drivers or riders more importantly to the innocent law abiding members of society. If i have to issue a ticket to every single person in the country and it saves one life then i have done my job, others wont see it my way but i really hate dealing with these deaths, they ARE avoidable its just the standard or driving and riding in this country is crap! and its everyone elses fault but yours, especially when you get a ticket for something you know you were doing!!! :Oi:

The Stranger

18th April 2008, 07:52

Agree, even though I have had one speed camera fine for 61 in a 50 and a recent 112km/h fine. All I can say in my case is that I was watching the road and other traffic instead of my speedo, and both tickets were on downhill sections in automatics...

What were you thinking focusing on your surroundings?
Keep your bloody eyes fixed on that speedo in future FFS.

JMemonic

18th April 2008, 13:28

What do you think traffic cops do? we are dedicated traffic officers who ARE real cops and not just to enforce traffic.

Really ok that's good to know, then why do I have issues when I ring up on a recent Friday night after my partner has had a bottle thrown at her in a car park by some drunken youth because she had the audacity to question his right to urinate on her car, only to be told sorry its not a priority as we are busy with traffic at the moment,

The old days werent good as the old traffic cops werent allowed to deal with REAL crime as you put it.

No but in comparison we had more police, (who just in case you are getting the wrong idea I actually respect, they are just doing their job in an under resourced situation), dedicated to dealing with real crime ie assaults, burglary etc than the current situation of having a police force divided in duties between traffic enforcement, revenue gathering and what we the public see as real police work, that is when we get burgled, assaulted etc, we do not want to be told its not a priority and to come into a station to file a report especially when we drive down the road to see an officer in a vehicle doing speed checks or better sitting in a camera car, how is that effective use of manpower ?

Have you ever had to deal with a fatal where speeding was an issue? have you ever had to inform the family of a death and see the life drain out of their eyes?

No to all of the above, its not currently part of my occupation.

How often does someone die as a result of a burglary or theft, the real crimes you speak of??

Oh please, careful on this one its happening more often and there are cases here in this fine county of ours unfortunately. Would more police on the beat in central Christchurch meant that the stabbing of tourists recently might not have happened we will never know

Luckily you dont have to deal with all of this, we do! its nice to sit in your warm home bitching about everything but you would soon change your tune should you have to deal with all of the mayhem that drivers and riders cause! and not just to the drivers or riders more importantly to the innocent law abiding members of society. If i have to issue a ticket to every single person in the country and it saves one life then i have done my job, others wont see it my way but i really hate dealing with these deaths, they ARE avoidable its just the standard or driving and riding in this country is crap! and its everyone elses fault but yours, especially when you get a ticket for something you know you were doing!!! :Oi:

Now I suggest you get of your rocking horse and re read my original post I did not make disparaging comments about police, just the methods used to disguise speed cameras and their effectiveness as a tool for reducing speed as opposed to their ability to collect revenue. I also offered suggestions around the usage of mock or dummy cars and perhaps the usage of warranted officers thus freeing up police to deal with what police are always complaining about and that is not having enough staff to attend "real" crime.

If I have my understanding of the situation and police feeling about this is incorrect then the officers I have spoken to are wrong as are your own union who have stated that there is a lack of officers.

How is it the Police are paid by the LTSA to enforce traffic safety and those account to hours of traffic enforcement at the expense of all other duties, or is this yet again another misunderstanding, would that money not be better spent having non sworn staff manning a speed camera for 8 hours than a sworn police officer that could be concentrating on better duties?

JMemonic

18th April 2008, 13:45

If i have to issue a ticket to every single person in the country and it saves one life then i have done my job

Bugger had meant to comment on this sentence in the previous post but had other things to deal with, if you were issuing a ticket by stopping someone speeding, dangerous driving, drunk or under the influence of drugs etc and that slowed someone down or took someone off the road who potentially could have caused injury or death good on you, however if that same person got a ticket in the mail what effect did that have on a potentially dangerous situation at that point in time, to bad if the one ticketed had already caused mayhem and carnage.But no the speed camera did its job it scared them into slowing down and took a person out of a patrol car and let them read a nice book on the side of the road. Tui ad here.

The Pastor

18th April 2008, 15:12

If i have to issue a ticket to every single person in the country and it saves one life then i have done my job,

so how dose issuing tickets save lives? no bit of paper is going to change accidents.

why dont you stop snooping around looking for people to ticket and piss off.

Coldrider

18th April 2008, 15:24

What do you think traffic cops do? we are dedicated traffic officers who ARE real cops and not just to enforce traffic. The old days werent good as the old traffic cops werent allowed to deal with REAL crime as you put it. Have you ever had to deal with a fatal where speeding was an issue? have you ever had to inform the family of a death and see the life drain out of their eyes? How often does someone die as a result of a burglary or theft, the real crimes you speak of?? Luckily you dont have to deal with all of this, we do! its nice to sit in your warm home bitching about everything but you would soon change your tune should you have to deal with all of the mayhem that drivers and riders cause! and not just to the drivers or riders more importantly to the innocent law abiding members of society. If i have to issue a ticket to every single person in the country and it saves one life then i have done my job, others wont see it my way but i really hate dealing with these deaths, they ARE avoidable its just the standard or driving and riding in this country is crap! and its everyone elses fault but yours, especially when you get a ticket for something you know you were doing!!! :Oi:Haven't you got a police magazine to subscribe too. You could save the world in that. Have you really got a R1, it doesn't fit with your doctrine.

Matt_TG

18th April 2008, 15:29

It sounds like people think Police get the money from traffic offences... doesn't the government? Aren't the Police to enforce what the government tells them to enforce? Don't we elect the government? It's all our fault then :) The KB way though is to not only shoot the messenger but to run him over, then back up and make sure he's dead.

jahrasti

18th April 2008, 15:46

avgas

18th April 2008, 15:50

bah
if you dont like it run a radar or dont speed.
its the 150kph loose ya license thing that gets me.

avgas

18th April 2008, 15:51

Haven't you got a police magazine to subscribe too. You could save the world in that. Have you really got a R1, it doesn't fit with your doctrine.
Have you got a ZX9 or is that your penis talking

Biggles08

18th April 2008, 15:54

While one may see traffic cars as just that traffic, The Police have some good powers in respects to finding people's ID. Criminals have to travel to and you would be surprised who and what they come accross in routine stops. I don't do traffic but am just trying to show a different point of veiw.
I've no problem with cops pulling me over and doing routine checks for this reason but check out this thread (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=69482) and let me know your thoughts on this cocksucker for wasting court time and resources!?!

Also what about the cocksuckers that defend blatant tickets in the hope that the Popo in charge don't show or what ever. Yes they have the right to defend them, but also shouldn't they be flamed for wasting valuable resourses?

See above.

avgas

18th April 2008, 15:58

I just don't see the link between speeding and the road toll :/ skidmark is still alive.
He doesn't ride fast enough yet. But he keeps trying.
All points aside speed doesn't kill. But apparently its wrong to do a "Stupid test" on drivers - if it wasn't i would distribute drinks to Auckland labeled "Poison - do no drink" to thin out their numbers.

Coldrider

18th April 2008, 16:01

Have you got a ZX9 or is that your penis talking
I'm not the one wishing to issue a ticket to every single person to save one life then riding a 270kph motorcycle.
Yes my dick is a ZX9.
Maybe Ting Tong would like to clean up after this accident, if you look closedly you can see the survivors.

HenryDorsetCase

18th April 2008, 16:03

i really hate dealing with these deaths, they ARE avoidable its just the standard or driving and riding in this country is crap! and its everyone elses fault but yours, especially when you get a ticket for something you know you were doing!!! :Oi:

I agree with you. I really do.

Now, please explain to me how enforcement of an arbitrarily set speed limit improves the "standard of riding or driving in this country".

I suggest to you that in fact the standard of drivers and driving in this country is completely separate from how fast any given driver is going at any given time.

New Zealand drivers are homicidal maniacs trying to kill me every time I go out, I suggest to you that at 99 kph or at 101 kph their actions are the same, and that in fact the difference between those speeds is not relevant except in the current statutorily defined context.

Ive said it before, but I will say it again, and I would like a considered response from you: My position is that there is no necessity for any speed limit anywhere. all that is necessary is enforcement of the four lawfully mandated standards relating to driving: Your driving is acceptable, (which is OK), your driving is careless you get a ticket, or other penalty, your driving is reckless, you get an appropriate penalty, your driving is dangerous, appropriate penalty.

A punter doesnt agree that their conduct was in the appropriate category? They have avenues (negotiating with the cop on the spot, negotiation/plea bargain, fighting it out in Court).

Oh no, I hear you say, it will tie up all our time in pointless court cases. So what? Every citizen has their right to a day in Court. If you have a system of infringement equivalents and plea bargains, then you might be surprised how few would bother. I don't know and its speculation but I would suspect it wouldnt be many.

What people, reasonable people, object to is the arbitrary nature of a randomly chosen figure being touted as the be-all and end-all of road safety.

It just isn't.

And dont get me started on driver licencing and training. OK you got me started:

No driver licence till you are 18, then only to be accompanied by a licenced driver with full licence for the first year. No passengers. Zero alcohol limit until 25 (by that time the habit might stick). No one gets a full licence without doing defensive driving courses, proper assessment and car control and including a first aid course and seeing some real car wrecks and maybe some carnage (real carnage, not stupid TV stuff). In fact everyone should do AT LEAST what the cops have to do to get qualified to drive a cop car (Silver star or standard or whatever its called).

Motorcycles similar but no 250cc limit: limit is kw/kg and it is up to the applicant to demonstrate that.

Thats my serious bit, now my not so serious bit (for the humour impaired):

When I take power from Uncle Helen with my ninja army, this will be the second thing I implement (the first will be execution of Winston Peters, and a bunch of others, by firing squad.)

Who's with me? Are you trained as a ninja?

jahrasti

18th April 2008, 16:03

And thats your right. I am not defending the cop but can the licence plate be seen when you are on the bike and someone is looking behind it from a car or such like?

I have seen number plates on bikes deliberately mounted so far foward that it is infact hard to see. And I have thought about giving them my autograph.

jahrasti

18th April 2008, 16:05

I'm not the one wishing to issue a ticket to every single person to save one life then riding a 270kph motorcycle.
Yes my dick is a ZX9.
Maybe Ting Tong would like to clean up after this accident, if you look closedly you can see the survivors.

Sweet as I will do it

Biggles08

18th April 2008, 16:06

Biggles - you are 10-ft-tall and bulletproof.

Not really....had a bad accident (still recovering now) in November because of a knobskin in a car parked on the road around a blind corner looking for a Christmas tree. he got a slap on the back of the hand with a wet bus ticket for that but when I go 150kph+ on a wide open road reminiscent of the autobahn in Germany, I would get immediate suspension for 28 days, $1000 fine with the possibility of 6 months no driving - all in the name of road safety! Fuck the wanker police (road going nazi's) in this country....they are mainly little boys who feel the need to justify their place by going out of there way to dumb down drivers to a point where they think speed kills?!?!? What a fucking joke! Speed kills about as much as water drowns...get fucking real!

Matt_TG

18th April 2008, 16:08

Take your pills and go and live in Germany mate.

The Pastor

18th April 2008, 16:10

.Yes my dick is a ZX9.

I wish my penis was a motorbike :)

Coldrider

18th April 2008, 16:14

Take your pills and go and live in Germany mate.Autobahns yeh hah. Is this a police site now.

jahrasti

18th April 2008, 16:15

A punter doesnt agree that their conduct was in the appropriate category? They have avenues (negotiating with the cop on the spot, negotiation/plea bargain, fighting it out in Court).

Oh no, I hear you say, it will tie up all our time in pointless court cases. So what? Every citizen has their right to a day in Court. If you have a system of infringement equivalents and plea bargains, then you might be surprised how few would bother. I don't know and its speculation but I would suspect it wouldnt be many.

Fair enough you are allowed your day in court, but what happens when it is General Duties cops that are in court? Is that not one less cop that can go to callouts that day? GDB officers give out tickets too.
What are you going to plea bargain, Sorry I knew my WOF was two months overdue, if you drop the ticket to half the money I will get it tomorrow I promise.
Sorry I knew I had cut spings, Don't give me a pink sticker and I will put the correct ones in tonight I promise.
I didn't have my seatbelt on because I don't believe that they save lives, but drop my ticket by half and i will wear it all the time I promise.

I could go on and on

Biggles08

18th April 2008, 16:18

Take your pills and go and live in Germany mate.

Yeah thats the way...send everyone who disagrees with you overseas....are you part of the Labor party? :niceone:

Maybe you should organize some camps where you can send all these people to...in trains that don't speed of course....hold on that sounds familiar!

SPman

18th April 2008, 16:18

"The road toll has been reduced by about 50 per cent since the inception of cameras in 1989."

Whilst totally ignoring the effect of enhanced car structures, airbags, ABS brakes, vehicle stability control, better roads, tyres, just generally better vehicles!!

Its all down to speed cameras, folks!

What a crock of shit!

jahrasti

18th April 2008, 16:18

Not really....had a bad accident (still recovering now) in November because of a knobskin in a car parked on the road around a blind corner looking for a Christmas tree. he got a slap on the back of the hand with a wet bus ticket for that but when I go 150kph+ on a wide open road reminiscent of the autobahn in Germany, I would get immediate suspension for 28 days, $1000 fine with the possibility of 6 months no driving - all in the name of road safety! Fuck the wanker police (road going nazi's) in this country....they are mainly little boys who feel the need to justify their place by going out of there way to dumb down drivers to a point where they think speed kills?!?!? What a fucking joke! Speed kills about as much as water drowns...get fucking real!

Sorry my mistake I forgot it was the Police that hand out the punishments, I forgot justice was dispanded.
But I am curious why are they little boys?

Biggles08

18th April 2008, 16:20

Sorry my mistake I forgot it was the Police that hand out the punishments, I forgot justice was dispanded.
But I am curious why are they little boys?

Look down your pants between your legs...its kinda obvious.

jahrasti

18th April 2008, 16:23

Yeah thats the way...send everyone who disagrees with you overseas....are you part of the Labor party? :niceone:

Maybe you should organize some camps where you can send all these people to...in trains that don't speed of course....hold on that sounds familiar!

Look down your pants between your legs...its kinda obvious.

I'm a little tea pot short and stout here is my handle here is my spout.

If I am the pot you must be the kettle.

PrincessBandit

18th April 2008, 16:34

Okay, i just had to go back and read the starter post in this thread. I don't see what everyone is getting their dick in a huge knot for. (Apart from perhaps trying to prove that it's long enough for them to tie in a knot). If I speed or run a red light and I'm pinged, who do I have to blame for that? Let's see here, thinking really really hard, oh, I've nearly got it, it's on the tip of my tongue....Light bulb: the answer is ME! We know what the road rules are and if we're going to flout them we are well aware what the consequences will be - this is regardless of what our "criminal behaviour" is. Getting het up over who gets a slap on the wrist with a wet lettuce leaf compared to the huge fine we might get for something we feel is far less "dangerous" is understandable but not likely to solve anything. HTFU, suck it up, and take ya medicine. I have nothing but admiration for the police who often have a crap job which seems to result in getting a lot of grief when they're either only trying to do their best and /or following orders. (This from a woman who had to wait for hours before police could arrive when she walked in on a burglar in her own home one night).

Biggles08

18th April 2008, 16:34

I'm a little tea pot short and stout here is my handle here is my spout.

If I am the pot you must be the kettle.

The point is jahrasti, there are fewer 'good' cops on the road now days... The last two times I have been pulled over I have been very polite and cooperative with the cops but both times they have given me tickets. The first time I was speeding and did deserve some sort of a ticket but the one I got I don't think - no, I'll rephrase that, I know the circumstances did not warrant it 'in the name of safety' which is how the officer was justifying it to me. The last time was for my # plate and no rear reflector...the numberplate is just a joke, it is easily seen while I'm on it (look further in the thread there are photos of me riding in front of a car) I made sure that it is..I have even put lighting on it for at night, I have no intention of hiding my numberplate...even here online. The reflector was something I did not realize was needed and I have since put one on...but did it warrant a $150 fine...all that did was make me pissed off at ALL TRAFFIC COPS. This cocksucker that pulled me over did so because he was annoyed that he didn't get me speeding because the guy I was with was. He asked me why I had a radar detector. Go figure fucktard!

Coldrider

18th April 2008, 16:40

Okay, i just had to go back and read the starter post in this thread. I don't see what everyone is getting their dick in a huge knot for. (Apart from perhaps trying to prove that it's long enough for them to tie in a knot). If I speed or run a red light and I'm pinged, who do I have to blame for that? Let's see here, thinking really really hard, oh, I've nearly got it, it's on the tip of my tongue....Light bulb: the answer is ME! We know what the road rules are and if we're going to flout them we are well aware what the consequences will be - this is regardless of what our "criminal behaviour" is. Getting het up over who gets a slap on the wrist with a wet lettuce leaf compared to the huge fine we might get for something we feel is far less "dangerous" is understandable but not likely to solve anything. HTFU, suck it up, and take ya medicine. I have nothing but admiration for the police who often have a crap job which seems to result in getting a lot of grief when they're either only trying to do their best and /or following orders. (This from a woman who had to wait for hours before police could arrive when she walked in on a burglar in her own home one night).
I don't agree with or support any one who breaks the law, i even critisize a few who do, but I don't like the site for police propaganda or lectures either.

jahrasti

18th April 2008, 16:46

The point is jahrasti, there are fewer 'good' cops on the road now days... The last two times I have been pulled over I have been very polite and cooperative with the cops but both times they have given me tickets. The first time I was speeding and did deserve some sort of a ticket but the one I got I don't think - no, I'll rephrase that, I know the circumstances did not warrant it 'in the name of safety' which is how the officer was justifying it to me. The last time was for my # plate and no rear reflector...the numberplate is just a joke, it is easily seen while I'm on it (look further in the thread there are photos of me riding in front of a car) I made sure that it is..I have even put lighting on it for at night, I have no intention of hiding my numberplate...even here online. The reflector was something I did not realize was needed and I have since put one on...but did it warrant a $150 fine...all that did was make me pissed off at ALL TRAFFIC COPS. This cocksucker that pulled me over did so because he was annoyed that he didn't get me speeding because the guy I was with was. He asked me why I had a radar detector. Go figure fucktard!

Thats you opinion and you are allowed it. I am not gunna argue, all I have to say yes you may have been given a warning but weren't. Generaly, unfortunetly warnings don't work. I give out a few warnings but nothing fucks you off more than give a motorist a warning and then have them drive off laughing and you know they aren't gunna do anything about it.

HenryDorsetCase

18th April 2008, 16:47

Fair enough you are allowed your day in court, but what happens when it is General Duties cops that are in court? Is that not one less cop that can go to callouts that day? GDB officers give out tickets too.
What are you going to plea bargain, Sorry I knew my WOF was two months overdue, if you drop the ticket to half the money I will get it tomorrow I promise.
Sorry I knew I had cut spings, Don't give me a pink sticker and I will put the correct ones in tonight I promise.
I didn't have my seatbelt on because I don't believe that they save lives, but drop my ticket by half and i will wear it all the time I promise.

I could go on and on

plea bargain in the sense that: Cop says "I believe that your conduct was reckless because of blah" punter says "ferk off, it wasnt dangerous at all, I barely touched 'im guvnor" Cop says "rather than fuck about if you agree to cop to careless with X penalty then I will give you the approprate ticket" It goes on now but informally. Cop goes in like a box of hammers knowing he will be bargained down, punter knows he has a shot of getting a reduced penalty, then it falls finally where it should be.

as for your cut springs example, if dickweed does have cut springs, puts the right ones in (i.e. the vehicle is presented to the cop or whatever and yes it has the proper springs in)then dickweed doesnt get caught again with the cut ones in for say a year, whats the harm? In fact is it not arguable that is a better road safety outcome?.

As for GDB cops vs HP cops, again my response is either "so what?" isnt uncle helen giving us all more cops for christmas (its election year after all). And surely, the coercive arm of the state MUST be answerable to the judicial, or are you arguing for an actual fascist police state?

the WOF example is easy too: (and not to mention WAY off my central thesis which is that speed doesnt kill, people do) You have no statutorily required certificate your vehicle is fit to drive. The coercive arm of the state's attention is drawn to that fact somehow. Your vehicle is clamped and then (at your cost) you have to get it towed to where they issue WOFS and get a new WOF. Not difficult is it?

No seatbelt? (and again WAY off the speed thing) Unless your vehicle (pre 1962 innit) doesnt require them, then you get ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt. It might be classed as reckless (but you might plead guilty to careless) or it might attract its own penalties as it does now.

OK ive dealt with your off topic scenarios. I'm waiting for you to address my central thesis. To reiterate: You need to defend speed limits ipso facto as a tool of road safety.

You're up.

Biggles08

18th April 2008, 16:48

Okay, i just had to go back and read the starter post in this thread. I don't see what everyone is getting their dick in a huge knot for. (Apart from perhaps trying to prove that it's long enough for them to tie in a knot). If I speed or run a red light and I'm pinged, who do I have to blame for that? Let's see here, thinking really really hard, oh, I've nearly got it, it's on the tip of my tongue....Light bulb: the answer is ME! We know what the road rules are and if we're going to flout them we are well aware what the consequences will be - this is regardless of what our "criminal behaviour" is. Getting het up over who gets a slap on the wrist with a wet lettuce leaf compared to the huge fine we might get for something we feel is far less "dangerous" is understandable but not likely to solve anything. HTFU, suck it up, and take ya medicine. I have nothing but admiration for the police who often have a crap job which seems to result in getting a lot of grief when they're either only trying to do their best and /or following orders. (This from a woman who had to wait for hours before police could arrive when she walked in on a burglar in her own home one night).

While I would like to agree with you PB, the fact is you have missed the point. The law is an ass in regards to speed vs road safety...this leads to further misconceptions about our rights as citizens of this country. While everyone wants the roads to be safer, reducing speed is not the way to achieve this. If we all just sit back and let governments make silly laws while little boys are charged to enforce these stupid laws, we may as well give up all our rights now and trust the gov to look after all our interests. This Ting Tong 'poor excuse for a cop' fella is exactly why the police in this country a less and less liked as people...in fact you could say I'm trying to do the police a favor by pointing out this poor behavior!

I can honestly say that I would like to respect the police in this country but the fact is they have done little to encourage my respect...and hence they receive little. When I start seeing and hearing of good policing of real road safety issues and not the bullshit propaganda that we see every day then I may change my mind.

HenryDorsetCase

18th April 2008, 16:50

Okay, i just had to go back and read the starter post in this thread. I don't see what everyone is getting their dick in a huge knot for. (Apart from perhaps trying to prove that it's long enough for them to tie in a knot). If I speed or run a red light and I'm pinged, who do I have to blame for that? Let's see here, thinking really really hard, oh, I've nearly got it, it's on the tip of my tongue....Light bulb: the answer is ME! We know what the road rules are and if we're going to flout them we are well aware what the consequences will be - this is regardless of what our "criminal behaviour" is. Getting het up over who gets a slap on the wrist with a wet lettuce leaf compared to the huge fine we might get for something we feel is far less "dangerous" is understandable but not likely to solve anything. HTFU, suck it up, and take ya medicine. I have nothing but admiration for the police who often have a crap job which seems to result in getting a lot of grief when they're either only trying to do their best and /or following orders. (This from a woman who had to wait for hours before police could arrive when she walked in on a burglar in her own home one night).

did you get my pic with my dick tied in a knot?

You are arguing about a different thing from what I am arguing. Your position is that someone who knowingly breaks a law (running a red, speeding) should attract the statutorily defined consequences and shouldnt whine like a little girl. I agree with you.

I am arguing an ENTIRELY different thing, which is that arbitrary speed limits do not assist in assuring anyones road safety.

HenryDorsetCase

18th April 2008, 16:52

Whilst totally ignoring the effect of enhanced car structures, airbags, ABS brakes, vehicle stability control, better roads, tyres, just generally better vehicles!!

Its all down to speed cameras, folks!

What a crock of shit!

concur.

there is a rule of logic that says:

Just because B follows A, it does NOT mean that A caused B.

but of course the gummint gets a LOT of revenue from speeding, nearly as much as the other slot machines.

twotyred

18th April 2008, 16:57

Biggles08

18th April 2008, 16:57

Thats you opinion and you are allowed it. I am not gunna argue, all I have to say yes you may have been given a warning but weren't. Generaly, unfortunetly warnings don't work. I give out a few warnings but nothing fucks you off more than give a motorist a warning and then have them drive off laughing and you know they aren't gunna do anything about it.

There is a fine line between opinions and facts. Re the warnings, I can see your point but it depends on the situation and whether the fine justify's the feeling the person will have of the police for years to come. I for example as written above have very little respect for the police due to personal experiences that ARE FACT not opinions.

The last time I had a good experience with a cop was when one saw 2 of my mates and myself on green kwakas on the side of the road having a cig stop and he pulls up to chat about bikes and life in general...didn't check up on us, hassle us for number plates, just talked about our bikes and shit. He road a TL and was obviously into bikes. He was from Dublin and had been here for one year...he was sick of the attitude NZ police had! What a top bloke, pulling up to put a face to the plod...he gained my respect right there and had he given me a warning about anything like red reflectors I would have listened to him (I had a different bike then, with a reflector:msn-wink:).

When was the last time you stopped to have a general chat with bikers? I bet it was more recent than Ping pong or ting tong whatever the fucktard calls himself here on KB

Toaster

18th April 2008, 16:58

But on the whole I seem them a tax on the brainless/dopey/careless drivers..:wait:

I can see the charge sheets now.....

On... at... did drive a motorvehicle on ... road in a manner considered to be dopey.

hehehehe;)

Coldrider

18th April 2008, 17:01

I can see the charge sheets now.....

On... at... did drive a motorvehicle on ... road in a manner considered to be dopey.

hehehehe;)Wait till the swing shift finishes, that's what they call it ?

PrincessBandit

18th April 2008, 17:01

did you get my pic with my dick tied in a knot?

You are arguing about a different thing from what I am arguing. Your position is that someone who knowingly breaks a law (running a red, speeding) should attract the statutorily defined consequences and shouldnt whine like a little girl. I agree with you.

I am arguing an ENTIRELY different thing, which is that arbitrary speed limits do not assist in assuring anyones road safety.

I did indeed get your pic you sick puppy. I'd report you, but it was kinda cute...:lol: Kidding!!!!!
I hear what you are saying, and I would like to point out that my post wasn't actually aimed at you per se. I'd have quoted something from it (like I did just now) if that had been the case. As for the original post, I guess it was just asking "wonder what our police think of it" i.e. the camera as revenue gathering, so the comment about police propaganda (think that was the word used by someone else a moment ago) is interesting.

Coldrider

18th April 2008, 17:06

...so the comment about police propaganda (think that was the word used by someone else a moment ago) is interesting.
Nah it was probably me, I can now safely log on to KB and recieve a lecture about how bad we are blah blah blah, maybe we can even receive virtual infringements. Maybe now KB is government controlled or spyed on.

FROSTY

18th April 2008, 17:07

Back to the origonal discussion. I think the point the Vic cops are making re speed cameras and red light cameras is totally valid.
In that the fine comes through the post and is not a disincentive for offenders.
By the time you get the fine the offence has long gone from ya mind.
My opinion is ya run a red bingo its an instant loss of keys on the spot
Random red light checkpoints on the black spots
Waste of fully trained cops arguably so --->
The use of freshly qualified cops on the booze checkpoints could be extended to include red light checkpoints.

Bass

18th April 2008, 17:09

I am arguing an ENTIRELY different thing, which is that arbitrary speed limits do not assist in assuring anyones road safety.

They may not assist in significantly reducing the probability of a crash (I refuse to use the word "accident"), but spudchucka made the point eons ago that they can affect the damage that is done when a crash occurs.

E = 1/2 M x V squared

So the energy involved in the crash (or the potential for ripping people apart) goes up as the square of the speed.
Basic physics really.

Ixion

18th April 2008, 17:09

Biggles08

18th April 2008, 17:09

Nah it was probably me, I can now safely log on to KB and recieve a lecture about how bad we are blah blah blah, maybe we can even receive virtual infringements. Maybe now KB is government controlled or spyed on.

Bastard....it was me...it was me! Trying to steal my quote:oi-grr:
:Punk:

Ixion

18th April 2008, 17:10

They may not assist in significantly reducing the probability of a crash (I refuse to use the word "accident"), but spudchucka made the point eons ago that they can affect the damage that is done when a crash occurs.

E = 1/2 M x V squared

So the energy involved in the crash (or the potential for ripping people apart) goes up as the square of the speed.
Basic physics really.

So, why do we have 50kph and 100kph limits? If we are trying to reduce the energy in a crash, everything should be 50kph. Or, actually, about 20kph, since that is the survival limit.

Coldrider

18th April 2008, 17:12

I don't agree with or support any one who breaks the law, i even critisize a few who do, but I don't like the site for police propaganda or lectures either.
ah, I used it too, tell ya what, we'll go halfs on the ticket.

Biggles08

18th April 2008, 17:13

They may not assist in significantly reducing the probability of a crash (I refuse to use the word "accident"), but spudchucka made the point eons ago that they can affect the damage that is done when a crash occurs.

E = 1/2 M x V squared

So the energy involved in the crash (or the potential for ripping people apart) goes up as the square of the speed.
Basic physics really.

This is false logic though....lets ban cars altogether then....that will reduce speed down to walking speed. Its called progress and like it or lump it, this includes getting things done faster and more efficiently. How long is this gov going to try to keep us in the dark ages? who made 100kph on the open road the 'safe' speed?

Bass

18th April 2008, 17:23

So, why do we have 50kph and 100kph limits? If we are trying to reduce the energy in a crash, everything should be 50kph. Or, actually, about 20kph, since that is the survival limit.
You don't need me to answer that one for you.
You know the answer as well as I do.
I forget the statistics but I think that it's now true that worldwide, we have killed more people on the roads than all the wars in history.
I am intrigued by the level of carnage that we will accept in the name of convenience.
As I said, I agree that speed may be wrongly demonised as a causal factor, but it sure has an influence on the spread of the bits (people included)

swbarnett

18th April 2008, 17:25

Criminals have to travel to and you would be surprised who and what they come accross in routine stops.
Why not set up routine stops at supermarket entrances? Presumably crims have to eat?

Why should the fact that I drive make me any more likely to be a crim? Routine stopping is just a way to make a cop's life easier. It's as bad as a teacher punishing the whole class just because the perpetrator cannot be identified.

The end does not justify the means.

Ixion

18th April 2008, 17:30

..How often does someone die as a result of a burglary or theft, the real crimes you speak of?? ..

Now this will always get a response from me.

Burglary IS a crime. the police have no remit to decrimalise it.

Burglaries often do more than steal a few replaceable bits of property. They wreck lives, they take away irreplaceable memories, they destroy peace of mind, perhaps for ever.

I know of old ladies who don't sleep at nights ,they sit up awake, and sleep during the day, because they are scared of being burgled again. I know of others who have given up their homes, and moved into rest homes, where they are utterly miserable , for no other reason than fear of burglars. And other people who have lost irreplaceable heirlooms, of little monetary value but immense personal value.

And burglary often leads to more serious crimes. Including murder. The police themselves say so, using that fact as justification for DNA sample taking from burglars. It is possible that the RSA murders by William Bell were a burglary that turned into multiple murder.

Burglary is NOT a joke, and you have no right to contemptuously deride those who have suffered at the hands of burglars. The police attitude toward such crimes is a disgrace , and unacceptable.

Your argument that speeding is more serious than burglary is fatally flawed in logic. EVERY burglary, by definition is a crime that HAS been committed . Someone HAS suffrered the misery that it brings. Probability is 100%.

Speeding MAY cause accidents, and even death, But the likelihood is VERY low. Every day on my ride to work and home, I see hundreds (literally) of drivers. At least 50% of them are speeding. How many of those that I see each day crash that day? None so far. Let alone die.

So speeding is a crime that only has a POSSIBILITY of inflicting misery. A very small possibility. How many "speed crimes" are committed in the country each year. Millions, at the least. How many of them lead to misery. A few hundred? (and remember, we are only considering speed in excess of the law, not inappropriate speed). A thousand at most. So the probability is very very low. Maybe 0.001%

Bass

18th April 2008, 17:31

This is false logic though....lets ban cars altogether then....that will reduce speed down to walking speed. Its called progress and like it or lump it, this includes getting things done faster and more efficiently. How long is this gov going to try to keep us in the dark ages? who made 100kph on the open road the 'safe' speed?

Sorry mate, it's not false logic and you have explained why yourself. It's all about what we are prepared to put up with for our own personal convenience.
I actually think that most of us are incapable of truly understanding until we have had to pick up some tattered and bloody pieces.
If the cops enforce the limits to contain the damage after the event, rather than prevent the event in the first place, then thats enough for me.
I agree that there are some spurious claims made in the name of road safety however.

avgas

18th April 2008, 17:32

Not really....had a bad accident (still recovering now) in November because of a knobskin in a car parked on the road around a blind corner looking for a Christmas tree
Goodness no, sounds terrible - i hear these new vehicles have a reverse too. Imagine the damage if he had tried that????
Yes he is a knobskin and no im not being cheeky - just merly stating that while you may be able to get him off the road there are about 2 million more left in the country.
The only thing you can change is you.
The world is out to kill you, its only a matter of time - and it happens to everyone.
Until you get on that bike, look your loved ones in the eyes and think to yourself it may be the last time they see you - your 10-ft-tall and bulletproof.

jahrasti

18th April 2008, 17:34

plea bargain in the sense that: Cop says "I believe that your conduct was reckless because of blah" punter says "ferk off, it wasnt dangerous at all, I barely touched 'im guvnor" Cop says "rather than fuck about if you agree to cop to careless with X penalty then I will give you the approprate ticket" It goes on now but informally. Cop goes in like a box of hammers knowing he will be bargained down, punter knows he has a shot of getting a reduced penalty, then it falls finally where it should be.

as for your cut springs example, if dickweed does have cut springs, puts the right ones in (i.e. the vehicle is presented to the cop or whatever and yes it has the proper springs in)then dickweed doesnt get caught again with the cut ones in for say a year, whats the harm? In fact is it not arguable that is a better road safety outcome?.

As for GDB cops vs HP cops, again my response is either "so what?" isnt uncle helen giving us all more cops for christmas (its election year after all). And surely, the coercive arm of the state MUST be answerable to the judicial, or are you arguing for an actual fascist police state?

the WOF example is easy too: (and not to mention WAY off my central thesis which is that speed doesnt kill, people do) You have no statutorily required certificate your vehicle is fit to drive. The coercive arm of the state's attention is drawn to that fact somehow. Your vehicle is clamped and then (at your cost) you have to get it towed to where they issue WOFS and get a new WOF. Not difficult is it?

No seatbelt? (and again WAY off the speed thing) Unless your vehicle (pre 1962 innit) doesnt require them, then you get ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt. It might be classed as reckless (but you might plead guilty to careless) or it might attract its own penalties as it does now.

OK ive dealt with your off topic scenarios. I'm waiting for you to address my central thesis. To reiterate: You need to defend speed limits ipso facto as a tool of road safety.

You're up.

I included the other traffic offences are there are traffic offences as well as speed and people would argue that they aren't unsafe.

Whats my personal opinion on speeding? well you aren't going to get me saying it on here.

I have answers for you but just can't be bothered typing them all.
You can type what you want about that.

Oh an ixion i was talking about warnings as a rule.

HenryDorsetCase

18th April 2008, 17:36

So, why do we have 50kph and 100kph limits? If we are trying to reduce the energy in a crash, everything should be 50kph. Or, actually, about 20kph, since that is the survival limit.

you beat me to it. ;)

JMemonic

18th April 2008, 17:39

Okay, i just had to go back and read the starter post in this thread. I don't see what everyone is getting their dick in a huge knot for. (Apart from perhaps trying to prove that it's long enough for them to tie in a knot).

Interesting metaphor, and I am in no hurry to see someone prove that they are capable of this :wacko::sick:

If I speed or run a red light and I'm pinged, who do I have to blame for that? Let's see here, thinking really really hard, oh, I've nearly got it, it's on the tip of my tongue....Light bulb: the answer is ME! We know what the road rules are and if we're going to flout them we are well aware what the consequences will be - this is regardless of what our "criminal behaviour" is.

Fair call and I agree, the start of the post was a reference to the fact Police, (in all be it another country), have made the comment that speed cameras are not an effective tool in reducing the speed limit and are as such more of a revenue collection tool, if police feel this to be the case then perhaps it is correct, but this is KB things get taken out of context all the time.

Getting het up over who gets a slap on the wrist with a wet lettuce leaf compared to the huge fine we might get for something we feel is far less "dangerous" is understandable but not likely to solve anything. HTFU, suck it up, and take ya medicine. I have nothing but admiration for the police who often have a crap job which seems to result in getting a lot of grief when they're either only trying to do their best and /or following orders. (This from a woman who had to wait for hours before police could arrive when she walked in on a burglar in her own home one night).

Again valid points, I too have admiration for the Police and the role they play in society, I do how ever feel strongly that having officers dedicated to traffic enforcement by manning mobile speed camera units hidden and designed just to collect fines hence revenue is a total waste of manpower (person power or what ever the PC version is). Often those who are fined don't care, look at the number of so called boy racers who have fines in the thousands and no intention of paying them.

Personally I feel it would be better to as I suggested, to have non sworn officers manning these mobile revenue collection devices leaving sworn officers to do actual police work, also I would love to see more red light cameras, and have them capable of proving who the driver of the vehicle is and a system in place that means if they can be positively identified it is not a slap on the wrist with a "wet lettuce leaf", (love that image it says a lot about the current system), but something far more suited perhaps dangerous driving.

Perhaps if our over worked and under resourced Police were not having to fill a quota of hours based on payment from the government department charged with improving road safety, and to fill that requirement were not manning speed cameras they would have more person hours to dedicate to more positive tasks, something that shows tangible results, if they had to dedicate hours to reducing the road toll then more booze buses sounds good, and a visible presence instead of this covert camera system. I remember when we used to have signs saying this is a speed camera area, the first thing folks did was to check their speed, observe what happens when a police car is parked on the side of the road in full view, vehicles slow down to the speed limit.

But at the end of the day I will not change the system, I am not in a position to, it does annoy me when law abiding folks cant get the assistance they need, deserve and have every right to expect when our Police are having to fill a arbitrary quota in hours doing a specific task that has little or no effect in the long run, or worse an officer (not sure if he is but that's another story) takes such umberance at a comment about speed cameras being an ineffective tool.

We have some good Police officers here who are doing a fine job, they know who they are.

HenryDorsetCase

18th April 2008, 17:44

I included the other traffic offences are there are traffic offences as well as speed and people would argue that they aren't unsafe.

Whats my personal opinion on speeding? well you aren't going to get me saying it on here.

I have answers for you but just can't be bothered typing them all.
You can type what you want about that.

Oh an ixion i was talking about warnings as a rule.

Jesus Zombie Christ! I dont give a fig about your personal opinion about speed, though given this is an informal, anonymous (kind of and in the sense that anything on the internet is anonymous, which is to say not at all) internet discussion forum, and we were discussing speed, then your opinion is as valid as mine, or hers over there, or anyones.

What I asked, if you will recall, is

Now, please explain to me how enforcement of an arbitrarily set speed limit improves the "standard of riding or driving in this country".

I'm still waiting.

HenryDorsetCase

18th April 2008, 17:48

Sorry mate, it's not false logic and you have explained why yourself. It's all about what we are prepared to put up with for our own personal convenience.
I actually think that most of us are incapable of truly understanding until we have had to pick up some tattered and bloody pieces.
If the cops enforce the limits to contain the damage after the event, rather than prevent the event in the first place, then thats enough for me.
I agree that there are some spurious claims made in the name of road safety however.

OK then, given that, why are known safety measures which would reduce carnage from car crashes not made mandatory? Five point harnesses. Full MANZ rollcage, neck brace, fireproof suit, automatic fire extinguishers, fuel cells, just off the top of my head.

HenryDorsetCase

18th April 2008, 17:56

I forget the statistics but I think that it's now true that worldwide, we have killed more people on the roads than all the wars in history.

Uh, this is relevant how? (even if true, which I frankly doubt).

JMemonic

18th April 2008, 17:58

OK then, given that, why are known safety measures which would reduce carnage from car crashes not made mandatory? Five point harnesses. Full MANZ rollcage, neck brace, fireproof suit, automatic fire extinguishers, fuel cells, just off the top of my head.

:eek5: don't suggest that one of the rocket scientists in power might see that and go to his mates hey I have had a good idea why don't we make it that all vehicles have to have the following

Ixion

18th April 2008, 17:58

You don't need me to answer that one for you.
You know the answer as well as I do.
I forget the statistics but I think that it's now true that worldwide, we have killed more people on the roads than all the wars in history.
I am intrigued by the level of carnage that we will accept in the name of convenience.
As I said, I agree that speed may be wrongly demonised as a causal factor, but it sure has an influence on the spread of the bits (people included)

It is more than convenience. Yes, we could eliminate most (not all) of the roads deaths by setting and ruthlessly enforcing a 20kph speed limit. We would also cripple society.(remember, it includes trucks as well as cars and bikes)

For good or ill, modern society relies on easy and effective transportation. Force transport back to the logistics of the horse and cart, and society as we know it would cease to be a functional practicality.

So, we do indeed accept that a certain number of deaths and injuries will be the price we pay for effective transport. Just as we accept that a certain number of deaths amongst building site workers will be the price we pay for multi story buildings. Just as we accept that a certain number of deaths will be the price we pay for air travel. Should we outlaw aircraft to eliminate those deaths (since speed limits are not practical)?

Everything has a price, everything has a risk. There are no free lunches. In general, up to physical limits, the faster the transportation medium, the more efficient it is. Travel time is unproductive, it is a unbeneficial cost to society. Reduce the time spent travelling, and society is better off.

We accept that a certain risk of death or injury , caused by travelling at 100kph, is acceptable. What logic is there that says that a greater number of deaths caused by travelling at , say, 120kph would not be equally acceptable, in return for a more efficient trasportation system. The argument is equally as valid as the one that says that we should accept a less efficient transportation system in return for fewer deaths .

As to being more than all the wars of history, I would much doubt that figure. A generally accepted figure for the fatalities of WW1 alone is 20 million. Include those of the Russian civil wars (another 15 million) , China's many wars etc. We cannot possibly be talking of less than 50 million dead.

That's in only a few of the worlds long and sorry history of wars.

I don't have a figure for the all time road toll. But, of recent years , the USA has had an average rate of around 40000 deaths pa . Now, in early years it would have been much lower (fewer cars in 1910!) So I think we might estimate the all time total for the USA at perhaps 2 million. The USA has a vastly greater number of vehicles than any other country. Probably (given that car ownership became common in the USA much earlier than in other countries), the all time car fleet number for the USA is as great as the rest of the world put together. That would make the global all time toll around 4 or 5 million. Very bad, but nowhere near that of war . Certainly, this is a very rough and ready computation, and I will readily yield to more robust figures. But the discrepancy is so great that I cannot see the any correction being able to substantiate the origianl claim. It smells of one of those convenient ones invented on the spot by zealots. I do not believe it.

SPman

18th April 2008, 18:24

That's in only a few of the worlds long and sorry history of wars.
A book I read recently on the subject, had a conservative estimate for the 20th century alone, of about 365 million "illegally killed" - about 15 million combatants in wars (soldiers etc) and the rest, civilians killed in the main by their own countries authorities - governments, warlords, etc! The more autocratic the country, the higher the death toll - the top killers being Stalins soviets and China - both Communist and Nationalist Chinese were about equal in the death stakes - however - I digress

I don't have a figure for the all time road toll. But, of recent years , the USA has had an average rate of around 40000 deaths pa . Now, in early years it would have been much lower (fewer cars in 1910!) So I think we might estimate the all time total for the USA at perhaps 2 million. The USA has a vastly greater number of vehicles than any other country. Probably (given that car ownership became common in the USA much earlier than in other countries), the all time car fleet number for the USA is as great as the rest of the world put together. That would make the global all time toll around 4 or 5 million. Very bad, but nowhere near that of war . Certainly, this is a very rough and ready computation, and I will readily yield to more robust figures. But the discrepancy is so great that I cannot see the any correction being able to substantiate the origianl claim. It smells of one of those convenient ones invented on the spot by zealots. I do not believe it.
The highest death rate - not in total killed, but cars per population/miles driven / etc/ etc was, I believe, 1939.
The death toll as a percentage of same, has steadily trended downwards, ever since.
Car safety, both passive and active has done more to reduce the death toll than any cubic meter of legislation or law enforcement, particularly since the early 80's!

scumdog

18th April 2008, 19:54

As for GDB cops vs HP cops, again my response is either "so what?" isnt uncle helen giving us all more cops for christmas (its election year after all). .

Mwahahahaha...more cops?

Oh shit yeah, that's why we're having to score relievers from Dunedin - just to make sure we have at least two on duty on night-shift (most of the time):mad:

Biggles08

18th April 2008, 21:19

Goodness no, sounds terrible - i hear these new vehicles have a reverse too. Imagine the damage if he had tried that????
Yes he is a knobskin and no im not being cheeky - just merly stating that while you may be able to get him off the road there are about 2 million more left in the country.
The only thing you can change is you.
The world is out to kill you, its only a matter of time - and it happens to everyone.
Until you get on that bike, look your loved ones in the eyes and think to yourself it may be the last time they see you - your 10-ft-tall and bulletproof.

Well 'your not trying to be cheeky' is hard to accept when you say stupid sarcastic shit like 'I hear these new vehicles have reverse!' Further more how the fuck do you know what I think when I go riding???

Frankly, I understand that I personally am not going to change 2 million people's attitude to road safety, but have you ever heard the quote "All evil ever needs to prevail, is for good people to do nothing?"

So while you take your life in your hands every time you decide to ride on the road is true, this doesn't mean you should accept it as an acceptable standard. I'll make as much noise as I can until people start to understand and look for the real problems....SPEED DOES NOT KILL! Its a fact!

scumdog

18th April 2008, 21:25

....SPEED DOES NOT KILL! Its a fact!

True.

It's how fast you stop that determines if you're likely to be killed.
Of course you need some level speed to be able to stop..

The faster the speed the faster the ability to stop there is.

Biggles08

18th April 2008, 21:41

True.

It's how fast you stop that determines if you're likely to be killed.
Of course you need some level speed to be able to stop..

The faster the speed the faster the ability to stop there is.

At last!!! A cop who agrees that speed does not kill...thank you for seeing logic. It indeed is the stopping that does the killing. If we had equal focus on managing both the excessive speed part as reducing the risks around stopping too fast, the road would be a lot safer! I believe the person in charge of the 'Speed Kills' campaign has a lot too answer to and is partly responsible for our roads not being a safer place.

There are far more important issues surrounding safety on our roads other than excessive speed such as proper education for drivers, better roads, better road rules for eg. IF the land transport dept really cares about safety on our roads, and that is a big IF, they should be looking at making roads with the realization that the stopping part is doing all the killing...its hard to believe that they really care about safety when there putting cheese cutters up everywhere (just as an example).

BIGBOSSMAN

18th April 2008, 21:58

If i have to issue a ticket to every single person in the country and it saves one life then i have done my job

Mate, it's that type of uninformed PC comment that has turned me off the Police in this country. Germany has unlimited speed limits on their Autobahns yet their road toll is lower per capita than here. Get yo head out of your arse and wake up to yourself. It's bad driving that kills, not speed per se. Read and learn...

scumdog

18th April 2008, 22:03

Mate, it's that type uninformed PC comment that has turned me off the Police in this country. Germany has unlimited speed limits on their Autobahns yet their road toll is lower per capita than here. Get yo head out of your arse and wake up to yourself. It's bad driving that kills, not speed per se. Read and learn...

Yeah makes ya wonder how we have such a high road toll with all these flash autobahns we have the length and breadth of this country....

spudchucka

18th April 2008, 22:04

Burglary is NOT a joke, and you have no right to contemptuously deride those who have suffered at the hands of burglars. The police attitude toward such crimes is a disgrace , and unacceptable.

Take a step back for a second and put it in context. The guy was just responding to the bullshit suggestion that the police as an organisation prioritise traffic enforcement over "Real Crime", a notion based on nothing other than a few people who can't control themselves when in charge of a motor vehicle and who whine like spoilt brats when they get caught.

Burglary is a huge priority to police. In the area that I work we have a boss that constantly pushes a hard line against burglars and they have invested heavily in additional staff to specifically target burglary as a strategic priority. The fact that burglary is a priority in no way results in traffic being less of a priority because as was pointed out in the post that seems to have offended everyone, its on the roads where people are dying.

What he said was all factually correct and in no way suggested that burglary is a joke. I understand completely his response in the face of the daily reality of his job and when you read through the ignorant and ill informed rot that gets published on this site, of which this thread is a classic example.

Biggles08

18th April 2008, 22:06

Yeah makes ya wonder how we have such a high road toll with all these flash autobahns we have the length and breadth of this country....

His point is that SPEED DOES NOT KILL not that we should all drive like we're on autobahns...stop twisting words. Of course we need speed limits here in NZ and a lot slower than set in Europe...thats because our roads suck arse! Lets fix em then!

Swoop

18th April 2008, 22:06

It's bad driving that kills, not speed per se.
Damn right on that!
But it is far easier for some pencil-dicked public servant in Wellytown to pick a number out of the air and declare "THIS is the target for road deaths this year".
Completely irrational and irresponsible. They need to target the level of crap driving here, first-and-foremost!

spudchucka

18th April 2008, 22:08

Mwahahahaha...more cops?

Oh shit yeah, that's why we're having to score relievers from Dunedin - just to make sure we have at least two on duty on night-shift (most of the time):mad:

Not to mention that they are looking at recruiting out of Singapore, imagine how well they'd go policing a bunch of pissed up Gorons!

scumdog

18th April 2008, 22:09

Completely irrational and irresponsible. They need to target the level of crap driving here, first-and-foremost!

Let's stuff THAT plan up - let's drive at a responsible safe level with a bit of courtesy thrown in..

scumdog

18th April 2008, 22:11

His point is that SPEED DOES NOT KILL not that we should all drive like we're on autobahns...stop twisting words. Of course we need speed limits here in NZ and a lot slower than set in Europe...thats because our roads suck arse! Lets fix em then!

Never twisted a single word - just put some balance in.

I could have pointed to third world country's roads and the road-toll there..all achieved at lower speeds than here.

spudchucka

18th April 2008, 22:12

Let's stuff THAT plan up - let's drive at a responsible safe level with a bit of courtesy thrown in..

Pfftt.... as if!

Ixion

18th April 2008, 22:14

By the bye. Did noone else notice that the cops are to be resnakeficated

From the Harold (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=247&objectid=10503161)repor ton the new Police Bill (the new Bill, as distinct from teh Old Bill - every one a gem, eh)

The bill creates the new position of "authorised officer", allowing civilian staff to be given jobs - such as traffic officer and jailer - that are currently reserved for sworn officers.
They also get specific powers, responsibilities and legal protections that only sworn police currently have, including the power to arrest.
The new positions will initially be restricted to police jailers, escorts, police guards, specialist crime investigators, such as forensic accountants, and traffic enforcement police.

So much for amalgamation!

98tls

18th April 2008, 22:16

His point is that SPEED DOES NOT KILL not that we should all drive like we're on autobahns...stop twisting words. Of course we need speed limits here in NZ and a lot slower than set in Europe...thats because our roads suck arse! Lets fix em then! Actually from a motorcyclists point of view i think we have some of the best roads in the world.:pinch:

Biggles08

18th April 2008, 22:16

Pfftt.... as if!

Yeah cause a safe responsible speed...with courtesy chucked no less, in most circumstances in this country, would result in receiving a 'speeding ticket!':baby:

BIGBOSSMAN

18th April 2008, 22:17

It's inappropriate speed that kills, obviously it is totally dependant on the type and quality of road what speed you ride at but this country is hell-bent on pandering to the lowest common denominator. Is this story just a coincidence eh?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4484922a10.html

Why should I be tarred with the same brush? I'm a mature rider of a 1000cc motorcycle and every now and again like to explore the machines potential on the open road, where it is appropriate (dry conditions, no cars or houses anywhere, etc).

I rest my case (until riled that is).

Biggles08

18th April 2008, 22:18

Actually from a motorcyclists point of view i think we have some of the best roads in the world.:pinch: Indeed but they are shared with trucks, cars and anything else on wheels...these vehicles could be traveling on a "main" highway, leaving all the "good" roads to those of us that want to travel for enjoyment.

98tls

18th April 2008, 22:28

Indeed but they are shared with trucks, cars and anything else on wheels...these vehicles could be traveling on a "main" highway, leaving all the "good" roads to those of us that want to travel for enjoyment. Agreed entirely and if there was some forward vision could well be achieveable but there isnt so i guess it wont,while we are talking things that wont happen i would love to see a zillion more your meant to be in this lane arrows on our roads for those that come here to see the sights as on more than one occasion my enjoyment on the good roads has been spoilt by someone that thinks there back home.

scumdog

18th April 2008, 22:34

Why should I be tarred with the same brush? I'm a mature rider of a 1000cc motorcycle and every now and again like to explore the machines potential on the open road, where it is appropriate (dry conditions, no cars or houses anywhere, etc).

I rest my case (until riled that is).

Unfortunately EVERY person with a 1000cc bike (and everybody with any car too I vouch) fels the same

But despite their high self-opinion they're proven wrong with thier incessant crashing and dying.

98tls

18th April 2008, 22:48

Why should I be tarred with the same brush? I'm a mature rider of a 1000cc motorcycle and every now and again like to explore the machines potential on the open road, where it is appropriate (dry conditions, no cars or houses anywhere, etc).

I rest my case (until riled that is). Agreed entirely and do the same myself when i consider it appropriate but as a mature rider of a 1000cc motorcycle i know full well that in a nano second my understanding of appropriate could well be flawed,in some ways i guess thats a little of the fun.

JMemonic

18th April 2008, 22:52

Take a step back for a second and put it in context. The guy was just responding to the bullshit suggestion that the police as an organisation prioritise traffic enforcement over "Real Crime", a notion based on nothing other than a few people who can't control themselves when in charge of a motor vehicle and who whine like spoilt brats when they get caught.

How often does someone die as a result of a burglary or theft, the real crimes you speak of??

Spudchucker I was the one who had the audacity to suggest that in some cases burglary and other crimes to the general public appear to take a lower priority to some officers than traffic duties, and received the above as part of the reply from Ting Tong, and from his statements in the rest of the post one could easily take it that in his view any crime other than traffic is basicly secondary, yes people die on the road, the situation I mentioned was the fact my partner had been abused by a male in a potentially harmful situation and was told that it was not a priority. It has to be from an officer one of the most stupid statements that could be made, his implication that less people die of burglary or thief than on the road belittles anyone who has lost a relative in this manner. Sure the road toll is a concern but I stand by my statements that visible police are far more effective than a covert camera.

Burglary is a huge priority to police. In the area that I work we have a boss that constantly pushes a hard line against burglars and they have invested heavily in additional staff to specifically target burglary as a strategic priority. The fact that burglary is a priority in no way results in traffic being less of a priority because as was pointed out in the post that seems to have offended everyone, its on the roads where people are dying.

What he said was all factually correct and in no way suggested that burglary is a joke. I understand completely his response in the face of the daily reality of his job and when you read through the ignorant and ill informed rot that gets published on this site, of which this thread is a classic example.

I am glad your area burglary is considered a priority , how ever having been the victim of this crime a couple of time now and been told to go into my local station and file a report, with no police attendance and in one instance I knew who the offender was but without evidence, (which I suspect could have been gleaned from a quick fingerprinting of the area) this person was never questioned thus never charged, not that had he been it would have meant the court system would have enforced any judgement against him, (not the fault of the police).

The original post and start of this discussion was the mention that in Victoria a high percentage of police believe as do the public that speed cameras are not constructive to road safety, I actually made what I feel to be reasonable suggestions but that seems to have been missed. Such is the internet.

BIGBOSSMAN

18th April 2008, 22:59

Unfortunately EVERY person with a 1000cc bike (and everybody with any car too I vouch) fels the same

But despite their high self-opinion they're proven wrong with thier incessant crashing and dying.

I have neither crashed nor died, so EVERY person with a 1000cc bike most certainly does not either have a high self-opinion or feel the same.

Given the right conditions, time and place, high speed on a motorcycle is no problem whatsoever.
If high speeds are so unsafe, why then do the Police engage in high-speed pursuits (esp thru surburban areas)?

Gotcha!

98tls

18th April 2008, 23:07

Police and priorities is an interesting topic there simply isnt enough police and when you consider that every Friday/sat night in the space of a few hours there's 1700 or so 111 calls made many of them by complete and utter timewasters that are either fucked up on drugs or pissed or just plain fucked up but the cops still have to waste there and the genuine peoples time sorting them out.

scumdog

18th April 2008, 23:10

I have neither crashed nor died, so EVERY person with a 1000cc bike most certainly does not either have a high self-opinion or feel the same.

Given the right conditions, time and place, high speed on a motorcycle is no problem whatsoever.
If high speeds are so unsafe, why then do the Police engage in high-speed pursuits (esp thru surburban areas)?

Gotcha!

The point I was trying to make was that EVERYBODY thinks the speed they drive/ride at is safe because they're a good driver, when have you ever heard anybody say "yeah, I was riding at about 125kph on a good road and was shitting myself 'cos I'm not really such a shit-hot rider"?

Some people would be out of their depth in a pedal-car/trike in a supermarket carpark.

scumdog

18th April 2008, 23:12

Agreed entirely and do the same myself when i consider it appropriate but as a mature rider of a 1000cc motorcycle i know full well that in a nano second my understanding of appropriate could well be flawed,in some ways i guess thats a little of the fun.

Yep, a lot of dead riders have probably had the same nano-second thought just before their existance on this planet came to an end.

Biggles08

18th April 2008, 23:19

The point I was trying to make was that EVERYBODY thinks the speed they drive/ride at is safe because they're a good driver

Wrong....some people who are in charge of vehicles don't think at all!...let alone self analyzing whether there speed is safe or not. People have been dumbed down so much in this country that nobody expects them to have to think anymore...thats the whole problem.

SixPackBack

18th April 2008, 23:24

The point I was trying to make was that EVERYBODY thinks the speed they drive/ride at is safe because they're a good driver, when have you ever heard anybody say "yeah, I was riding at about 125kph on a good road and was shitting myself 'cos I'm not really such a shit-hot rider"?

Some people would be out of their depth in a pedal-car/trike in a supermarket carpark.

So true and yet we still give them licences, send 'em out to terrify the masses.

Trouble is scumdog 'some' people are capable of relatively high speed travel while others should be taking the bus, and yet all drivers are treated the same. It raises lots of interesting points and discussions [as we can see!].......the most salient issue is the simplistic view the government projects in the form of 'speed as a major killer. As you have testified this is clearly not the case, at any speed some of our community members should be [as you so eloquently put it] 'in a pedal car'.

98tls

18th April 2008, 23:25

I have neither crashed nor died, so EVERY person with a 1000cc bike most certainly does not either have a high self-opinion or feel the same.

Given the right conditions, time and place, high speed on a motorcycle is no problem whatsoever.
If high speeds are so unsafe, why then do the Police engage in high-speed pursuits (esp thru surburban areas)?

Gotcha! Fair call,i always check with the cockys living along my chosen route to see that there fences are in order and whilst at it i have a word with every other road user before we meet just to make sure there not going to fuck up or be on a road i dont think they should be,i to love to ride quickly down roads i find appropriate and enjoyable but after 30 odd years of doing so i find the "i havent crashed etc" comments amusing.Maybe all your riding is on a track, i have no idea,if so in some ways there more amusing.

Ixion

18th April 2008, 23:26

The point I was trying to make was that EVERYBODY thinks the speed they drive/ride at is safe because they're a good driver, when have you ever heard anybody say "yeah, I was riding at about 125kph on a good road and was shitting myself 'cos I'm not really such a shit-hot rider"?

Some people would be out of their depth in a pedal-car/trike in a supermarket carpark.

Well, I certainly make no claims to being a shit hot rider (or driver). Indeed, I recognised many years ago that I really knew bugger all about fast riding, and certainly lacked any aptitude for it. Which is the reason I ride slower than your Nana's Nana. (Mind you, there was time, many years ago, when I knew everything there was to know about riding. Some bastard must have added stuff to the list when I wasn't watching)

But even I find there are occasions when the 100kph limit is unnecessarily restrictive.

scumdog

18th April 2008, 23:26

Wrong....some people who are in charge of vehicles don't think at all!...let alone self analyzing whether there speed is safe or not. People have been dumbed down so much in this country that nobody expects them to have to think anymore...thats the whole problem.

Sure, they don't analyze themselves UNTIL you aks them.

the thing is they don't drive/ride at a speed THEY think is unsafe (even if it is uncosciously).

Dumbed down? They don't need to be dumbed down - they already. (from thinking what burger they're going to buy, what DVD they're going to rent, what they're about to txt - anything they're about to do other than the task at hand - drive/ride.

swbarnett

18th April 2008, 23:26

I actually think that most of us are incapable of truly understanding until we have had to pick up some tattered and bloody pieces.
Actually, I have a theory that the act of "picking up some tattered and bloody pieces" colours the mind in such a way that one looses perspective.

Risk is a necessary part of life. With risk comes the occasional injury and death.

In NZ last year there was one death for every 92million km travelled*. In my book we should pat ourselves on the back.

(*2,786,389 registered vehicles averaging 14,000km/year - at a rough estimate given on a government web site, 421 deaths in 2007 = 1 death per 92,659,016km travelled)

swbarnett

18th April 2008, 23:27

Ixion

18th April 2008, 23:28

This is getting quite like the old days , but it is *so* incomplete without WINJA.

Obviously it will be in PD tomorrow

scumdog

18th April 2008, 23:30

Apart from the vast majority that are still alive and well.

Yeah, those in their graves don't say too much eh??<_<

BIGBOSSMAN

18th April 2008, 23:32

Fair call,i always check with the cockys living along my chosen route to see that there fences are in order and whilst at it i have a word with every other road user before we meet just to make sure there not going to fuck up or be on a road i dont think they should be,i to love to ride quickly down roads i find appropriate and enjoyable but after 30 odd years of doing so i find the "i havent crashed etc" comments amusing.Maybe all your riding is on a track, i have no idea,if so in some ways there more amusing.

It make me glad to have amused you so, but if you'd care to climb down from your false ivory tower you'd find that you also ride a 1000cc bike, and that you also exceed the speed limit - otherwise you'd be riding a Lifan or Hyosung 250.
I've had a major bike accident mate, but these days I'm exceptionally selective as to where I stretch the lags of the ZX10R - a quite rare occurrence.
I'm just honest about it...

Biggles08

18th April 2008, 23:36

Sure, they don't analyze themselves UNTIL you aks them.

the thing is they don't drive/ride at a speed THEY think is unsafe (even if it is uncosciously).

Dumbed down? They don't need to be dumbed down - they already. (from thinking what burger they're going to buy, what DVD they're going to rent, what they're about to txt - anything they're about to do other than the task at hand - drive/ride.

Exactly the problem...driving a vehicle is something that the government expects everyone can do...they can't. I know for a fact that if I'm going faster than the set speed limit, my conscious mind is completely on the job at hand (looking for cops...lol) which in turn makes me a safer rider than the average punter thinking about burgers etc. So this would lend suggestion that if we increased the speed we would have more aware drivers/riders:apint:
As a side issue, this is why I believe statistically- people with radar detectors are safer drivers than those without...it has nothing to do with the detectors but more to do with the attitude of the purchaser - they are enthusiasts who care about driving/riding.

98tls

18th April 2008, 23:37

swbarnett

18th April 2008, 23:38

Yeah, those in their graves don't say too much eh??<_<
Too true.

I was just trying to point out that only a small percentage of those who say they're riding within their limits when riding faster than the speed limit actually get proven wrong.

AllanB

18th April 2008, 23:41

What I do not understand is this:

You get a speed camera ticket for speeding - fine 'you' were breaking the law and you were caught, accepted and a cheque is in the mail.:crybaby:

But

If you were so naughty that it required that fine, why do you not get demerit points?

That's where the whole revenue earner comes to play in the entire speed camera argument with me.

BIGBOSSMAN

18th April 2008, 23:42

people with radar detectors are safer drivers than those without...it has nothing to do with the detectors but more to do with the attitude of the purchaser - they are enthusiasts who care about driving/riding.

Ha ha ha you're a funny mutherfucker - oops you're my friend (shut up BBM)

98tls

18th April 2008, 23:48

It make me glad to have amused you so, but if you'd care to climb down from your false ivory tower you'd find that you also ride a 1000cc bike, and that you also exceed the speed limit - otherwise you'd be riding a Lifan or Hyosung 250.
I've had a major bike accident mate, but these days I'm exceptionally selective as to where I stretch the lags of the ZX10R - a quite rare occurrence.
I'm just honest about it... Thing is for me anyway fwiw i find that after my 30 odd years of riding everynow and then i find that places i thought appropriate just about smack me in the face,over the coast going to the Woodstock rally there i am in motorcycling heaven doing my thing and everything is just awsome until i gas it out of a left hander and am faced with a camper van on my side of the road,sometimes i have wondered if with experience comes complacency but we are just to experienced to see it.Something like that anyway.

Biggles08

18th April 2008, 23:51

Ha ha ha you're a funny mutherfucker - oops you're my friend (shut up BBM)

Right...nite nite all

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb121/biggles08/6phd55i.gif (http://s205.photobucket.com/albums/bb121/biggles08/?action=view&current=6phd55i.gif)

BIGBOSSMAN

18th April 2008, 23:52

Thing is for me anyway fwiw i find that after my 30 odd years of riding everynow and then i find that places i thought appropriate just about smack me in the face,over the coast going to the Woodstock rally there i am in motorcycling heaven doing my thing and everything is just awsome until i gas it out of a left hander and am faced with a camper van on my side of the road,sometimes i have wondered if with experience comes complacency but we are just to experienced to see it.Something like that anyway.

I never go balls out 110% on the road, and always allow enough time to react to those sorts of situations. Having a partner, kid, mortgage and 2 cats does that to you lol.
And all my wonderful friends, for whom life would be meaningless without me...:buggerd:

98tls

18th April 2008, 23:56

I never go balls out 110% on the road, and always allow enough time to react to those sorts of situations. Having a partner, kid, mortgage and 2 cats does that to you lol.
And all my wonderful friends, for whom life would be meaningless without me...:buggerd: lol,and long may it continue,for all of us.

spudchucka

19th April 2008, 07:10

I am glad your area burglary is considered a priority , how ever having been the victim of this crime a couple of time now and been told to go into my local station and file a report, with no police attendance and in one instance I knew who the offender was but without evidence, (which I suspect could have been gleaned from a quick fingerprinting of the area) this person was never questioned thus never charged, not that had he been it would have meant the court system would have enforced any judgement against him, (not the fault of the police).

The original post and start of this discussion was the mention that in Victoria a high percentage of police believe as do the public that speed cameras are not constructive to road safety, I actually made what I feel to be reasonable suggestions but that seems to have been missed. Such is the internet.

The big boss in my area monitors burglary attendance and the standard that he expects is 100% attendance within 24 hours of a complaint being received or to have an appointment made for attendance later if it cannot be arranged inside the first 24 hours.

Other areas aren't fortunate enough to have sufficient resources to set such high standards. I've worked in several areas where the rate of burglary is astronomical and the cops just can't keep up with the volume of complaints so they prioritise jobs, often to the disappointment of complainants as to why their complaint doesn't rate as a priority. Such areas typically will also have huge traffic volumes and consequently will also have a high crash rate. Cops on traffic patrol won't usually be diverted to historic burglaries but if it is a burglars on situation Comms will use whatever units they can find to cordon them in.

Many busy stations now operate a burglary desk, where a complaint is taken over the phone and then added to the pile for enquiry cops and / or crime scene attendants to get to when they can. There is also a trial under way in this country of a single national non-emergency number that people will use to report historic offences. This trial has also involved a huge investment by police in terms of staff required to set up a call centre and to also have sufficient people on the ground to do the follow up work. The net result is that it has taken about 30% of the daily work off the GDB front line, which can only be good as it frees them up to do more proactive patrolling. The trial of this system came about as a result of the enquiry following the Asher girl going missing in west Auckland.

As for the original post, its good to be reminded what it actually was because typically these threads go way off topic. I'm no fan of speed cameras, although there is evidence to suggest that the national mean speeds have reduced significantly since they were introduced I do feel that out of all the initiatives to reduce crash trauma this is the only one that really stinks of revenue gathering. I would much rather see a human in a police car on the road side than a robot up a pole or in the back of a van.

Last comment in regards to fingerprinting, only about 24% of burglaries attended actually yield any fingerprints or other useful forensic evidence. Many complainants insist there will be fingerprints here or there, (too much CSI crap on TV), but experience tells us that if prints aren't found at the point of entry they are seldom found anywhere else inside a burglary scene.

Having said that they do occasionally show up in the most unusual places. I resolved a burglary last year where they burglar spilled sugar on the kitchen floor and for some reason took the time to sweep it up, no prints were found at the point of entry, in fact I found glove marks there but out of interest I dusted the broom that the offender used to sweep up and got his prints off the broom handle.

Its a strange and imperfect world that we live in.

inlinefour

19th April 2008, 07:51

All I can say is they wouldn't make money from ME!

The speed-cameras?
Mehh, never worried about them - but never received a speed-camera ticket yet so that may change.

Red-light cameras?
Go for it - just wish the penalty was higher and if you get sprung by one of them? - you deserve to contribute to the Gov't coffers imho.

But on the whole I seem them a tax on the brainless/dopey/careless drivers..:wait:

Have to agree with you here. I should have got a speeding ticket God knows, but never have. Might have something to do with carefully thinking about where I'm going to have my fun and making sure thats only where I do it, not on the ride there or back. Something that some riders just can't deal with. Adrenaline in and brains out syndrone.
Also agree with the red light camera penality and that it should be max. I've come very close to being taken out in Wellington by some moron that was definitely not doing 50kph. If you can't stop for a red light then your a retard and the only road you should be on is at the crossings for pedestrians.
End of the day though, it is a revenue gathering exercise, its just that those who are invlove often like to preform like trained seals, often on this site...:whistle:

scracha

19th April 2008, 07:57

Yeah, cameras show way more discretion...

At least a camera can tell the difference between two different bikes. As for cops using discretion.....well I'm not a freemason so have never been shown any leniency by the boys in blue.

JMemonic

19th April 2008, 09:53

I would much rather see a human in a police car on the road side than a robot up a pole or in the back of a van.

The robot up a pole I don't care about its the robot in the van taking an officer away from proactive duties, while he drives that van and sits in it all day, and the fact that the powers that be claim this is having and effect on the road toll, there are numerous factors at play in the reduction of this figure, from the safety factor of modern cars to possibly better driver awareness. Heck signs saying speed camera area might have a better effect on speeding than a ticket received in the mail a month after the event.

Mind you this might all be a moot point as I see from this post

By the bye. Did noone else notice that the cops are to be resnakeficated

From the Harold (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=247&objectid=10503161)repor ton the new Police Bill (the new Bill, as distinct from teh Old Bill - every one a gem, eh)

So much for amalgamation!

If managed correctly (and I say this with tongue firmly planted in cheek) this could perhaps be a reasonable solution, and allow more sworn officers into the front line, although I would hate to see a situation forming similar to what the fire service went through. Its topic for better discussion elsewhere though.

Last comment in regards to fingerprinting, only about 24% of burglaries attended actually yield any fingerprints or other useful forensic evidence. Many complainants insist there will be fingerprints here or there, (too much CSI crap on TV), but experience tells us that if prints aren't found at the point of entry they are seldom found anywhere else inside a burglary scene.

Yeah TV has a lot to answer for in that regard and thank you for clearing that up, in my case I know where the print was I could see it on the rear view mirror, in grease of all things but hey spilt milk now.

Having said that they do occasionally show up in the most unusual places. I resolved a burglary last year where they burglar spilled sugar on the kitchen floor and for some reason took the time to sweep it up, no prints were found at the point of entry, in fact I found glove marks there but out of interest I dusted the broom that the offender used to sweep up and got his prints off the broom handle.

That is why we need more experienced officers on the front line, and ones who can think, as to the crim in that case :lol:

Its a strange and imperfect world that we live in.

Thank god for that I would hate to live in a perfect world, it would be so boring.

spudchucka

19th April 2008, 11:58

The robot up a pole I don't care about its the robot in the van taking an officer away from proactive duties,

The camera vans are operated by non-sworn staff who have no warrant to carry out the duties of a police officer. Some of them are former sworn officers who have left the job for various reasons and have come back as non sworn employees but their presence has no impact on actual numbers of sworn cops on the street.

Edbear

20th April 2008, 15:14

scumdog

20th April 2008, 21:13

The robot up a pole I don't care about its the robot in the van taking an officer away from proactive duties, while he drives that van and sits in it all day, and the fact that the powers that be claim this is having and effect on the road toll, there are numerous factors at play in the reduction of this figure, from the safety factor of modern cars to possibly better driver awareness.

Can't speak for EVERY case but a lot of the time the camera van is operated by a non-sworn worker OR an officer on light duties (i.e. after a shoulder or leg operation etc)

So they don't actually take a functioning officer off the front line stuff.

SixPackBack

21st April 2008, 07:22

Captain Gatso in England promotes/leads a band of citizens vehemenently opposed to the speed camera, to date over 1,000 cameras have been destroyed.

Good on him and his soldiers. :niceone:

scumdog

21st April 2008, 07:51

Captain Gatso in England promotes/leads a band of citizens vehemenently opposed to the speed camera, to date over 1,000 cameras have been destroyed.

Good on him and his soldiers. :niceone:

And an extra 3 quid has been built into each of the Gatso fines to compensate for those destroyed ones - a win-win eh??

JMemonic

21st April 2008, 09:18

The camera vans are operated by non-sworn staff who have no warrant to carry out the duties of a police officer. Some of them are former sworn officers who have left the job for various reasons and have come back as non sworn employees but their presence has no impact on actual numbers of sworn cops on the street.

Can't speak for EVERY case but a lot of the time the camera van is operated by a non-sworn worker OR an oficer on light duties (i.e. after a shoulder or leg operation etc)

So they don't actually take a functioning officer off the front line stuff.

Gents thanks for clearing up that misunderstanding I had, the reason I was under that perception was every time I have seen a van the operator appeared to be in Police uniform. Ok if the officer is on light duties that's is a reasonable role for them as would be attending burglary reports etc, that is what the public would like to see more of or better yet visiting schools.

Visible police presence would have far more effect, as would finding more officers to post in regions so Scumdog's area does not have to borrow officers from another area just to fill their staffing issues, yeah I know pipe dream and promised before.

Way back when the Government of the day promised us all the extra Police and promptly gave them to us by disbanding the MoT officers who's sole responsibility it was to enforce traffic, merging those who meet certain requirements into the police force, (we wont go with the statements that some of them were reject Police in the first place), and precluded a number on various restrictions in force at the time on requirements for Police we the public lost out, sure we gained a few Police, the force as a whole suddenly had extra duties and the visibility went down, hell I know I would check my speed if I saw a black and white or in those days a HQ Holden with a huge arse light bar across the top, (yes police could issue tickets for traffic as well I know I had one once), there was a visible presence.

Biggles08

21st April 2008, 09:43

Gents thanks for clearing up that misunderstanding I had, the reason I was under that perception was every time I have seen a van the operator appeared to be in Police uniform. Ok if the officer is on light duties that's is a reasonable role for them as would be attending burglary reports etc, that is what the public would like to see more of or better yet visiting schools.

Visible police presence would have far more effect, as would finding more officers to post in regions so Scumdog's area does not have to borrow officers from another area just to fill their staffing issues, yeah I know pipe dream and promised before.

Way back when the Government of the day promised us all the extra Police and promptly gave them to us by disbanding the MoT officers who's sole responsibility it was to enforce traffic, merging those who meet certain requirements into the police force, (we wont go with the statements that some of them were reject Police in the first place), and precluded a number on various restrictions in force at the time on requirements for Police we the public lost out, sure we gained a few Police, the force as a whole suddenly had extra duties and the visibility went down, hell I know I would check my speed if I saw a black and white or in those days a HQ Holden with a huge arse light bar across the top, (yes police could issue tickets for traffic as well I know I had one once), there was a visible presence.

Just buy yourself a radar detector and it doesn't matter what uniform or not the guy sitting in the speed camera van is wearing....the detector goes off and without fail...you check your speed...same affect isn't it?

JMemonic

21st April 2008, 11:03

Just buy yourself a radar detector and it doesn't matter what uniform or not the guy sitting in the speed camera van is wearing....the detector goes off and without fail...you check your speed...same affect isn't it?

Actually the issue of fines has never been my problem, time and place kinda thing, but then I ride like a nana now days, just ask the the Christchurch Wednesday night group. I feel 100Km/h is fast enough in most cases as NZ roads are not suitable for faster speeds. I may need a radar detector in the future with a new bike who knows.

My whole point is and has been having our Police force required to meet a quota of hours solely on traffic enforcement in the guise of safety is not the best usage of resources, or have we the public been misinformed about the LTSA requiring auditing from police as to hours in this area.

The start of the thread was again, Police in Victoria feeling that speed cameras, and red light cameras are nothing more than revenue collection to which I agreed, a fine 1 month after the event did not in anyway reduce the potential for an accident that may have caused death. I also stated I like red light cameras but would like to see them take photos from both the front and rear of the vehicle and these be used to identify the driver where possible, the driver is then given a walking ticket and re-educated in the distinction of colours, as it would appear from my observation and those of others on site that this practice is becoming more frequent.

I must remember though that what I consider to be a good idea would to some be seen as fascist hell why cant they run red lights, it hurts no one and everyone stops for them, that is until someone gets killed.

roogazza

21st April 2008, 12:15

Welcome to KB, Ting Tong!

Tingtong would have to be very young, newly graduated or both ?
He'll mellow ! G.

swbarnett

21st April 2008, 13:53

I must remember though that what I consider to be a good idea would to some be seen as fascist hell why cant they run red lights, it hurts no one and everyone stops for them, that is until someone gets killed.
In principle I agree with you - red-light running Is dangerous and down right disrespectful of other road users. However, I'm not convinced that red light cameras are the answer.

The way I see it this issue has two parts - extending the green (i.e. the runner has just had the green and thinks they can scoot through before the opposing traffic has their green) and ignoring the lights all together (opposing traffic has had the green for a while.

I don't believe that the latter happens very often (at least from my own observations). I think it is the former that is the real problem.

Before they throw red light cameras everywhere and give us more fodder for the revenue gathering debate I'd like to see the gap between greens removed completely. At present the red-light runner has been given a safety margin of "a couple of seconds" where they think they can get away with it. If the two opposing lights changed simultaneously people would get to know very quickly when their safety window ends - when their light goes red (forgive me if I'm a bit slow but isn't that what a red light is supposed to mean? - "Do not proceed as it is dangerous to do so"). No more will people be en mass thinking "I can make that, I've got an extra second or two" and completely misjudge the time required to clear the intersection.

JMemonic

21st April 2008, 17:55

In principle I agree with you - red-light running Is dangerous and down right disrespectful of other road users. However, I'm not convinced that red light cameras are the answer.

The way I see it this issue has two parts - extending the green (i.e. the runner has just had the green and thinks they can scoot through before the opposing traffic has their green) and ignoring the lights all together (opposing traffic has had the green for a while.

I don't believe that the latter happens very often (at least from my own observations). I think it is the former that is the real problem.

Before they throw red light cameras everywhere and give us more fodder for the revenue gathering debate I'd like to see the gap between greens removed completely. At present the red-light runner has been given a safety margin of "a couple of seconds" where they think they can get away with it. If the two opposing lights changed simultaneously people would get to know very quickly when their safety window ends - when their light goes red (forgive me if I'm a bit slow but isn't that what a red light is supposed to mean? - "Do not proceed as it is dangerous to do so"). No more will people be en mass thinking "I can make that, I've got an extra second or two" and completely misjudge the time required to clear the intersection.

You raise very valid points and well thought out solutions, you are correct in what a red light means and I like your thinking, now the hard part is to get the powers that be to see it that way.

Nice to see someone putting thought into these things.

SixPackBack

21st April 2008, 18:43

And an extra 3 quid has been built into each of the Gatso fines to compensate for those destroyed ones - a win-win eh??

Social disobedience is a firm warning to the government and Police force. A dollar value is of no importance.

jaykay

25th April 2008, 11:24

Red light cameras cause crashes, some drivers panic brake and there is a tendency for more rear enders. Red light runners should only be dealt with by real police. (research done in the US).

If there were demerit points for speed cameras the Police would actually have to know who was driving - and it would have to be an offence to refuse to name the driver. However if the police wished to question you about an alleged offence they would have to caution you first - and you don't have to answer any questions. So the problem is neatly sidestepped by an "owner liability". Hence an owner is deemed liable to pay a speed camera fine even if out of the country (if his vehicle gets a ticket). Hence tickets through the post are only about revenue raising, and nothing to do with road safety. (Also bear in mind speed camera evidence is almost useless, the only evidence the police really have is when the fine is paid)

scumdog

25th April 2008, 11:41

[QUOTE=jaykay;1536743]Red light cameras cause crashes, some drivers panic brake and there is a tendency for more rear enders. Red light runners should only be dealt with by real police. (research done in the US).

Hence tickets through the post are only about revenue raising, and nothing to do with road safety.

Who cares when it's losers paying for the tickets? - they're generally of the ilk of those who learn nothing anyway, they're the type that will pay again and again throughout their lives for similar idiocy...

Swoop

25th April 2008, 11:51

And an extra 3 quid has been built into each of the Gatso fines to compensate for those destroyed ones - a win-win eh??
With dedication to their work, using many different skills and approaches, we look forward to the day when the level is raised to 9quid!:woohoo:

RDJ

25th April 2008, 12:15

scumdog

25th April 2008, 22:57

JMemonic

25th April 2008, 23:27

And personally I'm surprised the percentage is as high as 24%, in my experience it's alot less - thanks a fair bit to all those CSI/Crime type TV programmes that show how crims get caught - they teach crims how NOT to get caught too.

Ok a little off topic but hey it is KB and that's the norm, but I have often wondered about that, not so much CSI but some of those shows on Discovery and that new crime channel, sure most of the cases shown are 10 years or so old but still.

Coldrider

26th April 2008, 06:38

The company I work for received a letter yesterday from NZ Police, an employee who has paid a speed camera fine twice (company car). They are to send a refund. Now if fines are to get through to people to not speed, what is it to someone who has paid twice for the one infringement, it obviously was water of a ducks back.

spudchucka

26th April 2008, 06:52

not to redirect the thread but as quoted from an earlier post:

".... comment in regards to fingerprinting, only about 24% of burglaries attended actually yield any fingerprints or other useful forensic evidence. Many complainants insist there will be fingerprints here or there, (too much CSI crap on TV), but experience tells us that if prints aren't found at the point of entry they are seldom found anywhere else inside a burglary scene. ""

ummm... if in one quarter of a particular crime's total you could positively identify the perpetrator, and on the basis of the proven 'broken windows' effect on improving life for the rest of us, it seems very difficult to understand / justify why every burglary should not be approached looking for forensic evidence. A 25% success rate in providing a solution in practically any other field of endeavour would be regarded as highly significant and worth the investment. Or have I misinterpreted / misrepresented the situation?

Ahhh, the old misquoted quote story. You need the full picture.

About 25% of burglaries attended yield some form of positive forensic evidence, of the 25% only about 20 - 30% result in a positive ID. Quite often the prints are either the complainants, the crim isn't in the system yet or they just aren't clear enough to get a match in AFIS.

Then you also need to take into account the current legal definitions of burglary. Up until a couple of years ago a burglary had to be to an actual dwelling and there had to be a "break", which meant if you went out and left your ranchslider door open and somebody pinched your TV then it wasn't a burglary it was a theft ex dwelling.

Now, since the crimes act amendment, a burglary is simply "entering a building without authority and with intent to commit a crime there in". No break is required but the interesting thing is the definition of building that has been changed to include a yard. So now every time a lawn mower gets pinched from somebody's back yard or their car port its called a burglary and such an incident does not present anywhere near the same forensic opportunity as a house burglary in which they have forced entry and spent time rummaging around the property.

Further back in the thread you might also notice where I said that in the area I work in the big boss expects 100% attendance at burglaries, which includes all the insecure garden sheds etc that wouldn't have ever been considered a burglary under the old crimes act.

spudchucka

26th April 2008, 06:54

Sanx

26th April 2008, 17:09

What do you think traffic cops do? we are dedicated traffic officers who ARE real cops and not just to enforce traffic. The old days werent good as the old traffic cops werent allowed to deal with REAL crime as you put it. Have you ever had to deal with a fatal where speeding was an issue? have you ever had to inform the family of a death and see the life drain out of their eyes? How often does someone die as a result of a burglary or theft, the real crimes you speak of?? Luckily you dont have to deal with all of this, we do! its nice to sit in your warm home bitching about everything but you would soon change your tune should you have to deal with all of the mayhem that drivers and riders cause! and not just to the drivers or riders more importantly to the innocent law abiding members of society. If i have to issue a ticket to every single person in the country and it saves one life then i have done my job, others wont see it my way but i really hate dealing with these deaths, they ARE avoidable its just the standard or driving and riding in this country is crap! and its everyone elses fault but yours, especially when you get a ticket for something you know you were doing!!! :Oi:

Ah you taking the piss, or are you really that obscenely stupid? At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, you'd have done very well in Nazi Germany, where a pre-requisite of doing well was the ability to mentally ingesting vast amounts of propaganda without it touching those areas of the brain that contain logic and reason. I can honestly say I haven't read anything quite so dense and mindless on this forum in a long time (and no, I don't have skidMark blocked).

The points I would normally raise have been covered in detail by others, so there's no point going into them. In fact, there wouldn't be any point going into them anyway, as you're obviously mentally unequipped to deal with a rational discussion.

Sanx

26th April 2008, 17:41

Fuck it - can't resist.

Listen, my pathetically ignorant little friend. See if you can get your 2.5 working neurons round this...

In 1999, there were 124,880 speeding tickets issued by officers. By 2003, that had risen to 390,195 speeding tickets. In the same period, average open road speed fell from just over 100kph to just over 98kph and average speeds in 50kph areas fell from 57.5 kph to just over 53 kph. Enforcement was working - speed was coming down.

Now, according to your fucked-up, propaganda-laden, evidence-free theory, NZ would be a happy place full of smiling individuals saved from a gruesome death at the hands of those deadly speeders. Except it isn't. Road deaths in 50 kph areas fell by 13% between 1994 and 2000. Between 2001 and 2003, they rose back up to 1994 numbers, despite the massive increase in vehicle safety (ABS, traction control, ESP, airbags, better suspension and brakes, etc). Injuries in 50 kph zones dropped by 7% between 1994 and 2000, then rose by 10.4% between 2001 and 2003. Open road deaths fell during the 2000 to 2003 period by 2%, but injuries rose by 7.8%, more than negating the fall in the preceeding six years.

Do you see where this is going, oh cop of little brain? This is not some politician-inspired hypothesis based upon a preconceived notion and rolled out to convince the sheeple that they're doing something. These are just the government's own figures for average speed, tickets issued, people killed and injuries that occurred. And, taken as a whole, all of the evidence points to just one thing. (I'll try to keep it in words of one syllable so you can understand.) Giving out fines for speed does not make the roads any safer. In fact, it makes the roads less safe.

OK, I failed on the one syllable thing - if the sentence proves hard to understand, looking up "giving" in a dick-shun-aree. It's a big book of words. You'll find 'giving' just after 'git' and before 'gullible'.

Safe driving cannot be measured in kilometres per hour. Driving more slowly does not equate to driving safer. If, and I realise this may prove impossible as you'd actually have to engage what passes for your brain occasionally, you manage to understand this, you might end up an effective police officer. And no, effective does not mean issuing lots of tickets, before you unzip and slap out your ticket book and boast about how big it is. Effective means doing something to improve the safety of road users. The figures show that for the last few years, the government and police have between them managed to reverse what had been a decade-long year-on-year fall in the number in injuries and fatalities. That is not road safety. Even for you.

jaykay

26th April 2008, 20:42

Sounds like you've actually done some research - there don't appear to be many people who have worked out that giving out tickets probably makes the roads less safe.

Biggles08

26th April 2008, 23:05

Sounds like you've actually done some research - there don't appear to be many people who have worked out that giving out tickets probably makes the roads less safe.

I've figured it out! :confused::niceone:

Sanx

26th April 2008, 23:12

Sounds like you've actually done some research - there don't appear to be many people who have worked out that giving out tickets probably makes the roads less safe.

The sad thing is that I didn't have to do any research. All the information one requires is published by various governmental bodies and neatly presented in tabular form. If the information wasn't so easily available, it would be a half-decent excuse for people such as the traffic muppet concerned to remain ignorant.

I imagine that most people have figured out that increased speed enforcement - as opposed to enforcement targeted at bad driving - is, at best, completely ineffectual and at worst, counter-productive.

Unfortunately, the ones that haven't figured it out are politicians, police commissioners, over-zealous traffic wombles and other individuals with amoeba-like intelligence levels. Not naming any names here, of course.

Jantar

26th April 2008, 23:12

Sounds like you've actually done some research - there don't appear to be many people who have worked out that giving out tickets probably makes the roads less safe.
Have a look at http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=48226&highlight=accident From almost exactly one year ago.

scumdog

26th April 2008, 23:21

Fuck it - can't resist.

Listen, my pathetically ignorant little friend. See if you can get your 2.5 working neurons round this...

Except it isn't. Road deaths in 50 kph areas fell by 13% between 1994 and 2000. Between 2001 and 2003, they rose back up to 1994 numbers, despite the massive increase in vehicle safety (ABS, traction control, ESP, airbags, better suspension and brakes, etc). Injuries in 50 kph zones dropped by 7% between 1994 and 2000, then rose by 10.4% between 2001 and 2003. Open road deaths fell during the 2000 to 2003 period by 2%, but injuries rose by 7.8%, more than negating the fall in the preceeding six years.

. That is not road safety. Even for you.

You did of course include the not inconsequential amount of extra cars on the roads (and other factors you probably haven't thought about/don't know about when you dug up those figures) eh? eh?

And injuries ROSE while deaths FELL?? Jeeeeez, I wonder why that is??:doh:

Oh, and what oh mighty one will it take to get the injuries/deaths down????

Sanx

26th April 2008, 23:41

You did of course include the not inconsequential amount of extra cars on the roads (and other factors you probably haven't thought about/don't know about when you dug up those figures) eh? eh?

And injuries ROSE while deaths FELL?? Jeeeeez, I wonder why that is??:doh:

Oh, and what oh mighty one will it take to get the injuries/deaths down????

So dude. The number of extra cars on the road between 1994 (actually, road deaths had been falling since 1991) and 2000 didn't affect the figures, but the numbers did affect the figures between 2001 and 2003? Is that what you're trying to say? And what are these other factors that should take all the blame and responsiblity away from the government and Police, huh? If you're going to use that argument, state what these factors are?

No - I don't have a magic bullet answer, but everywhere in the world that has tried increased speed enforcement as a method of reducing the road toll has found it has failed. Victoria, a model NZ holds up as being the epitome of success, has a rising road toll. The UK's road toll rose in areas where speed cameras went in and decreased in the few areas they didn't. The US saw a marked drop in the road toll in those States that increased their speed limits following the abolition of the 55mph federal maximum in 1995.

Road safety is brought about by a combination of three factors, often referred to as the three E's: enforcement, education and engineering. In NZ, we get enforcement. No education (no education based on fact, anyway), and precious little engineering. But those cost money, and enforcement generates money.

scumdog

26th April 2008, 23:53

So dude. The number of extra cars on the road between 1994 (actually, road deaths had been falling since 1991) and 2000 didn't affect the figures, but the numbers did affect the figures between 2001 and 2003? Is that what you're trying to say? And what are these other factors that should take all the blame and responsiblity away from the government and Police, huh? If you're going to use that argument, state what these factors are?

Road safety is brought about by a combination of three factors, often referred to as the three E's: enforcement, education and engineering. In NZ, we get enforcement. No education (no education based on fact, anyway), and precious little engineering. But those cost money, and enforcement generates money.

Just look at the dungers on the road now - cars that were not so old pre '01, and let's not even look at the types that drive them...

And I guess the education doled out by enforcement is too subtle for the average slack-jawed mouth-breathing car 'steerer' eh?

"Goll-eee Ethel, done got me ANOTHER one of them seat-belt tickets, what can I do ta stop gettin' them?"

swbarnett

27th April 2008, 00:13

You did of course include the not inconsequential amount of extra cars on the roads (and other factors you probably haven't thought about/don't know about when you dug up those figures) eh? eh?
The only way this would invalidate the comparison is if it can be shown that the vehicle fleet rose significantly faster (as a percentage) in the later of the two periods compared.

And injuries ROSE while deaths FELL?? Jeeeeez, I wonder why that is??:doh:
Improved vehicle safety maybe? Accidents that used to kill are now survivable.

Oh, and what oh mighty one will it take to get the injuries/deaths down????
Treating drivers with respect and assuming that they actually do have half a brain would be a good start.

swbarnett

27th April 2008, 00:14

And I guess the education doled out by enforcement is too subtle for the average slack-jawed mouth-breathing car 'steerer' eh?
Hitting somebody with a blunt instrument does not constitute education.

Sanx

27th April 2008, 00:22

Just look at the dungers on the road now - cars that were not so old pre '01, and let's not even look at the types that drive them...

The average increase in the age of the road fleet is fractional; 11.9 years in 2000 and 12.4 years in 2006. And the government can be thanked for that average increase in the age of the vehicle fleet too, as they introduced regulation to limit the age of imported cars from Japan, meaning that lower-paid individuals and families can no longer upgrade their cars as easily. However, that still means that on average, cars in 2006 were built in the 1994, rather than in 1988. By 1994, more and more cars came with ABS and better suspension and brakes. Tyre technology improved too. And the government and police still managed to reverse what had been an impressive downward trend.

Sorry, Scumdog, I cannot see that the average age of cars increasing by six months having the slightest effect on road safety, especially when you take into account the fact the cars, in absolute terms, are six years newer than they were in 2000.

And I guess the education doled out by enforcement is too subtle for the average slack-jawed mouth-breathing car 'steerer' eh?

"Goll-eee Ethel, done got me ANOTHER one of them seat-belt tickets, what can I do ta stop gettin' them?"

As you know, I was talking about speed enforcement. No-one's against patently sensible enforcement, like wearing seat belts and not driving around in cars with the top 3" of the springs cut off. The figures I gave for tickets were for speeding tickets. In four years, they went up by over 350%. Did we see a resultant fall in deaths and injuries? Nope - we saw a reversal of the downward year-on-year trend that had been evident since 1991. And injuries rose sharply.

So, where are these valid reasons I conveniently overlooked?

thehollowmen

27th April 2008, 00:22

Interesting, when I was sending my stuff up from chch and riding my bike north, I noticed that the Christchurch intersections which have red light cameras on them have now got shortened amber times.

If they're worried about safety at the intersection, shouldn't the amber times get longer?

scumdog

27th April 2008, 00:24

Treating drivers with respect and assuming that they actually do have half a brain would be a good start.

You mean if we did that nobody would cut blind corners, drive drunk, speed in inappropriate places etc etc?

I feel you do not meet the same drivers I do, giving a lot of them credit for having half a brain is seriously over-estimating them.

scumdog

27th April 2008, 00:26

Jantar

27th April 2008, 00:32

Awe-kontraire, NO amber light would be the safest..
Only if the period that is currently amber was then red in ALL directions and adiscretionary period was allowed so that a driver who is only 10 meters short of the intersection at the time it changes to red doesn't have to suddenly slam on his brakes with resulting nose to tails.

But, isn't that what the amber light is now? Effectively it is a red light which means "Stop if it is safe to do so". Intentionally going through an amber when there is time to stop should be targeted just as much as going through a red.

I'm glad that we haven't got any lights here yet. There may be a round about in the near future though.

scumdog

27th April 2008, 00:32

Tyre technology improved too. And the government and police still managed to reverse what had been an impressive downward trend.

Technology is only ever any good when it's functional! i.e. to be childish: - what use is a low-profile steel-belted tyre when the suspension of the car is so altered that there's massive negative camber and the inside of the tyre is 'on the steel' while the outer edge has heaps of tread??

But at the end of the day from my experience it seems the sheer volume increase of cars driven by incompetents at speeds they shouldn't be driving them at in conditions they haven't taken into consideration that cause most of the crashes.

But the biggest single factor is lame-brained incompetent driver.

Jantar

27th April 2008, 00:35

...But the biggest single factor is lame-brained incompetent driver....

You just said a great big truth. :niceone:

swbarnett

27th April 2008, 00:56

You mean if we did that nobody would cut blind corners, drive drunk, speed in inappropriate places etc etc?

I feel you do not meet the same drivers I do, giving a lot of them credit for having half a brain is seriously over-estimating them.
I agree that the current crop of drivers is not the brightest. We created this situation by not expecting them to think even before they got on the road.

Expect a person to think and, eventually, that's exactly what they will do. The trick is to not give up expecting someone to think even when you see that, for the moment, they can't. The earlier in life this starts the better.

swbarnett

27th April 2008, 01:01

Awe-kontraire, NO amber light would be the safest..
Now, this proves you're not thinking.

What happens to the car that's travelling quite legally at 50kph and crosses the white line as the light changes from green to red?

Biggles08

27th April 2008, 09:58

I agree that the current crop of drivers is not the brightest. We created this situation by not expecting them to think even before they got on the road.

Expect a person to think and, eventually, that's exactly what they will do. The trick is to not give up expecting someone to think even when you see that, for the moment, they can't. The earlier in life this starts the better.

100% correct my friend. I get so frustrated with getting spoken down to by all our authority figures in New Zealand, and it starts right at the top...Helen C, Trevor M, Michael C etc. It then has seemed to filter down through the ranks all the way to the police force...but I digress. The point is, we have become so accustomed to mediocre performance in this country that nobody (very few) seem to realize when we're being fed bullshit by the bucket! All these problems that our community faces are not in fact community problems but individuals of that community's problem...don't blame me for that idiot who crashes and kills 5 people due to his stupidity...why should we all be blamed and tared with the same brush? We all need to take responsibility for our own actions and to do that we need to be given back our ability to choose.

People are always going to fuck up and make bad choices but that can be reduced with correct policing and correct education. What is happening now in NZ is neither of the above. We are currently in a situation where our leaders are doing their very best to discourage stand out performance and in fact it is frowned upon...we are all being dumbed down and expected to do as we're told without question....sound familiar?:weird:

Biggles08

27th April 2008, 10:04

and not just to the drivers or riders more importantly to the innocent law abiding members of society.

If it was up to you, by your very own words, there would not be any law abiding members of society left as you would have ticked them to save that one life...remember???? :blink::brick::tugger::tugger::tugger::tugger::tug ger:

Biggles08

27th April 2008, 10:11

But the biggest single factor is lame-brained incompetent driver.

So why all the arguing for then...we all agree, speed isn't the problem just like water isn't the problem for people drowning at Piha, its the bad choices made by these people....ie the driver is the problem...go after them!

scumdog

27th April 2008, 13:59

Now, this proves you're not thinking.

What happens to the car that's travelling quite legally at 50kph and crosses the white line as the light changes from green to red?

It shows YOU'RE not thinkg!!:wari:

Just have the lights go to red - then leave the already-red lights on the other street on long enough for all to clear the intersection before they go green.

NUTBAR

27th April 2008, 14:22

What do you think traffic cops do? we are dedicated traffic officers who ARE real cops and not just to enforce traffic. The old days werent good as the old traffic cops werent allowed to deal with REAL crime as you put it. Have you ever had to deal with a fatal where speeding was an issue? have you ever had to inform the family of a death and see the life drain out of their eyes? How often does someone die as a result of a burglary or theft, the real crimes you speak of?? Luckily you dont have to deal with all of this, we do! its nice to sit in your warm home bitching about everything but you would soon change your tune should you have to deal with all of the mayhem that drivers and riders cause! and not just to the drivers or riders more importantly to the innocent law abiding members of society. If i have to issue a ticket to every single person in the country and it saves one life then i have done my job, others wont see it my way but i really hate dealing with these deaths, they ARE avoidable its just the standard or driving and riding in this country is crap! and its everyone elses fault but yours, especially when you get a ticket for something you know you were doing!!! :Oi:

yes quite agree, i have had two tickets, both when overtaking cars that were doing between 10 - 20ks below the speed limit!
i do beleave there was a scientific study done a few years ago overseas that came to the conclusion that you were safer overtaking as quickly as posible & getting back onto your side of the road, therefor spending less time on the opposite side of the road!.
so in a safety point of vew, what is considerd safer? spending more time on the opposite side of the road? or being back on your side as quickly as possible?