No ticket quota for police? Read this...

[Conquiztador]

This is from: http://msn.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10531969

"Highway patrol officers should be "turned loose" or organised into blitzes to meet ticket targets, says a leaked email from one of Auckland's top traffic officers.

Police have consistently denied having quotas for traffic tickets, but critics say the email is further proof of their existence.

In the August 12 email, Waitemata road policing manager Superintendent John Kelly sets out ticket targets for his district's highway patrol officers in five "fatal" offence categories.

The categories are speeding, alcohol, restraints (e.g. seatbelts and child carseats), dangerous/careless driving and high-risk driving.

Each fulltime-equivalent officer is expected to issue 1420 tickets a year, including 560 for speeding, the email says.

With 225 traffic officers on New Zealand roads, that means 875 tickets should be dished out to motorists throughout the country every day.

And the email points out in bold type that the figures are "the minimum expectation".

Mr Kelly tells Senior Sergeant Bill Russell, head of Waitemata's highway patrol unit, in the email: "The responsibility for this performance would be over to you and the sergeants to manage - whether you turn people loose or organise blitzes on topics."

Mr Kelly told the Weekend Herald the figures in the email came from the national quarterly performance report, and were averages only.

"There's no quota," he said yesterday. "There's nothing that says, 'You will by God go out there and write out 25 tickets an hour for speeding' or anything like that.

"It's all around managing high-risk driving - as I said in the email, the fatal five - and reducing the road toll."

Mr Kelly said Police Commissioner Howard Broad made it clear individual performance targets for officers issuing traffic tickets could not be set.

"But we can set performance measures across groups. That's all it was intended to do - to say, 'Look, I want your team focused on these high-risk offences'."

However, National Party police spokesman Chester Borrows said Mr Kelly's email confirmed the existence of quotas "yet again".

"What running a quota does is concentrate on getting tickets and it doesn't concentrate on harm reduction," he said. "Police will give tickets to people where it's easy to catch them rather than where the real fear of death or injury is."

Police Association president Greg O'Connor also said the reality was that quotas existed.

"Every police officer knows that police have quotas and wryly smile whenever they see senior police stand up and say they don't.


"They are dressed up many other ways but the reality is that there is an expectation of members that are out there, that they will write so many tickets to certain categories."

Mr O'Connor said quotas were "essentially wrong" because they impacted on "that most important element of policing, which is discretion".

Act Party leader Rodney Hide accused the Government of turning police into "tax gatherers" by allowing ticket targets to be set.

"They're more worried about collecting revenue than targeting criminals and making streets safe."

But Mr O'Connor disagreed that issuing traffic tickets was revenue-gathering, saying they helped change bad motorist behaviour.

And Mr Kelly said arguments about revenue-gathering tended to focus illogically on speeding infringements.

"It's simply because a number of people like to speed and they don't like to be sanctioned for it. We've got to remember that the only people who get the tickets are the people who offend."

A spokesman for Police Minister Annette King said she had made it clear two years ago she didn't support quotas.

"She believes that police should be policing high-risk areas, dangerous roads where there's lots of accidents ... and obviously alcohol offences."


THE FATAL FIVE
Ticket targets set for each traffic officer per year:
* 560 speeding.
* 130 alcohol.
* 110 restraints.
* 220 dangerous/careless.
* 400 high-risk driving.

[cs363]

Slightly (but not much) different version here: http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/5012450/policeman-denies-email-proves-traffic-quotas-exist/

Sounds like National and Act are a little more realistic regarding where the police should be directing their attentions.

[Matt_TG]

I'd doubt they'd have problems achieving those targets anyway. NZers seem keen to incur fines :)

[Gubb]

Quota or not, if you break the law, expect to get punished.

What's the issue?

[Conquiztador]

I'd doubt they'd have problems achieving those targets anyway. NZers seem keen to incur fines :)

Or is it the quota that makes them incur the fines???

[Matt_TG]

I don't think so, it's the law/regulation/statute that makes the speed or style of driving become a fineable offence, not the quota. Quota ensure that cops are vigilant to ensure they act on breaches, I guess as per the oath of 'without favour, affection, malice or ill-will'. If they see it they are obliged to do something about it. Quotas don't make Police create offences, surely?

[Str8 Jacket]

Quota or not, if you break the law, expect to get punished.

What's the issue?

Preach it sista!!!!

[Toaster]

Well, you only get a fine because you broke the law. Simple.

Performance management is used in ALL areas of policing. I recall when in general duties I had to show how many criminal arrests etc etc I had done.

Even recruiters have targets - its all about paying someone to work and get results. Just like any other employer expects - results from their employees.

Would you be happier if they all sat around all day and did nothing?

Highway Patrol are funded to focus solely on road policing. Like it or not they are here to stay.

The threat of getting caught has certainly toned down my 'behaviour" on the roads.... not to mention saved a fair amount of fuel over the years.

[scumdog]

The cops have quotas?

BFD, who gives a shit, what does it matter.....

[Conquiztador]

Quotas don't make Police create offences, surely?

As Judge Dredd says: "Everyone is guilty of something"

[Conquiztador]

The cops have quotas?

BFD, who gives a shit, what does it matter.....

Well, it does matter. If a police officer, who has not reached his quota when coming close to end of the month, gets focused on adding speeding tickets and others, when there are more important things to work on in the community. Surely this is as a result of pressure from above and not as a result of working where most needed?

[Fatjim]

Thats pretty much 1:1 ticket to donut ratio there.

[Matt_TG]

Running an enforcement operation such as policing an intersection or setting up a speed camera is for the community good and as Traffic Police that's what they do eh?

[Gubb]

Well, it does matter. If a police officer, who has not reached his quota when coming close to end of the month, gets focused on adding speeding tickets and others, when there are more important things to work on in the community. Surely this is as a result of pressure from above and not as a result of working where most needed?

Highway Patrol is focused on traffic, as far as i'm aware, they won't be responding to the rape that is happening on the other side of town anyway, and i'm sure as hell that they will attend that fatal accident, even if they are 1 ticket short of their target.

[jafar]

Quota's have always been denied but we all know they exist in some way or another.If & when the police introduce prizes for the most tickets issued then we will have a reason to complain.

[The Stranger]

Well, you only get a fine because you broke the law. Simple.


Simple?
If the law is an ass, should it be blindly followed?


If those responsible for creating the laws openly flout or show disdain for the laws they create should they really expect anything but disobediance from the rest of us?
Example include the MP with 5 drink driving charges, a certain dope smoking MP, an MP who introduces a party hopping law then hops party, forgeries etc - not to mention Winstons latest debacle.

[Conquiztador]

Quota's have always been denied but we all know they exist in some way or another.If & when the police introduce prizes for the most tickets issued then we will have a reason to complain.

And you have it from where that this is not happening???

[vinnieh]

I don't really like the idea of quotas because well I just feel that it would encourage cops to sit in areas where people will be likely speeding (but not by much) such as when a speed limit changes from 100 to 50 or something. And places where the speed limit seems impossible slow. Like River Road in Hamilton. That road was originally going to be 60km/h until some residents got it brought down to 50km/h to cut down on noise levels. Fair enough but the amount of people I have seen pulled up on that road is ridiculous, cause everyone does like 65 there.

[niero]

Well, in the end if police have a quota to fulfill they will start handing out tickets like there is no tommorow. If they lets say are running behind in their ticket gathering, it means that they will try to punish rather than reinforce the law. Here is an example, A friend of mine here had his indicator bulb blown while he was driving, BANG, here goes a cop, and a fine with him... I would have thought that anyone would have understood, but not that cop, I bet he had his own job to worry about.

[R6_kid]

If the quota was set that they had to stop that many people, and ticket where appropriate then I think there would be a lot less people complaining.

i.e - doing 120kmh steady on an empty motorway late at night is not as dangerous as doing 120kmh through a busy motorway, cutting off other people etc.

With the first person it would be sufficient to put the blue and reds on, pull them over, and tell them to watch their speed. The second person is much more likely to cause harm to themselves, or more importantly others, and would be inline for a ticket.

I was lead to believe that officers are allowed to use their 'good judgement' about when to issue tickets, but it seems that far to often that they are too keen to reach for the book and issue a ticket.

Tickets should be handed out based on the immediate danger posed by the action/offence commited, not on the basis of "fuck me, i'm a few tickets behind today, better give this guy a ticket"

[MSTRS]

Tickets should be handed out based on the immediate danger posed by the action/offence commited, not on the basis of "fuck me, i'm a few tickets behind today, better give this guy a ticket"

That's it in a nutshell...

[igor]

The cops have quotas?

BFD, who gives a shit, what does it matter.....

I really don't like your attitude. You should give a shit.

and when I did traffic, we never had a quota . YOU COULD GIVE OUT AS MANY TICKETS AS YOUR WANTED, THERE WAS NO MAXIMUM.

The great thing was there was so many duffuses breaking the law it was like fishing at Fairy Springs in Rotorua.

Its like people who don't wear seatbelts. They always had a bad attitude. I told them, I don't really care if they die, whats another body to pick up and put in a bag, but what did upset me was having to tell there Mum or Wife and then listening to them blubbering evry time I spoke to them. This comment seemed to change their bad attitude very quickly.

I remember this one lady I told, The crying started off as a low blubber and got louder and louder, shit it was a horrible noise. If it was a dog ya would of put it out of its misery.

[unrealone]

If the quota was set that they had to stop that many people, and ticket where appropriate then I think there would be a lot less people complaining.

i.e - doing 120kmh steady on an empty motorway late at night is not as dangerous as doing 120kmh through a busy motorway, cutting off other people etc.

With the first person it would be sufficient to put the blue and reds on, pull them over, and tell them to watch their speed. The second person is much more likely to cause harm to themselves, or more importantly others, and would be inline for a ticket.

I was lead to believe that officers are allowed to use their 'good judgement' about when to issue tickets, but it seems that far to often that they are too keen to reach for the book and issue a ticket.

Tickets should be handed out based on the immediate danger posed by the action/offence commited, not on the basis of "fuck me, i'm a few tickets behind today, better give this guy a ticket"

Agree with that.

So, maybe their quota's should be based on: "Vehicles pulled over". That way, they still ensure naughty people are dealt to but theres not so much pressure on, 'gotta give em a ticket for something'....

I'd elaborate more... but i just polished the car and im damn nackered! :girlfight:

[MSTRS]

I really don't like your attitude. You should give a shit.
Why? SD is good people. He hasn't soaked up the 'attitude'.



and when I did traffic, we never had a quota . YOU COULD GIVE OUT AS MANY TICKETS AS YOUR WANTED, THERE WAS NO MAXIMUM.

We don't give a toss about 'maximums'...it's the minimum that we object to. Quota - Expectation - Instruction...whatever the word given to it, it is a MINIMUM figure that is in place. That is not good policing. Might as well have a load of robots out there.

[Ixion]

The concern with a minimum requirement is , what happens if their are not that many offences committed?

For instance, each cop is require dot issue at least 110 seat belt tickets a year. Two every week.

But by my observation, and backed up by statistics, non-wearing of seat belts is quite rare. Surevys in Dorkland show something like 99% of people wear them (that are required to).

So what happens when PC plod gets toward the end of his quota year, and find he has 8 weeks to go and has only issued, say, 60 seat belt tickets. And look around as hard as he may , he can find hardly anyone not wearing their seat belt. And now he gets to 4 weeks out from quota time, and he's only up to 75 of the 110. What's he going to do? Odds are , make up some offences, Stop someone for a genuine offence and throw in "And you weren't wearing your seat belt". "Yes I was." "Prove it. Here's the ticket"

Bet it happens.

Likewise 220 is a high figure for the quite serious charges of careless or dangerous driving. Nearly 5 every week, for every single cop. Maybe explains some of the creative "dangerous driving" charges one hears of.

[igor]

The concern with a minimum requirement is , what happens if their are not that many offences committed?

For instance, each cop is require dot issue at least 110 seat belt tickets a year. Two every week.

But by my observation, and backed up by statistics, non-wearing of seat belts is quite rare. Surevys in Dorkland show something like 99% of people wear them (that are required to).

So what happens when PC plod gets toward the end of his quota year, and find he has 8 weeks to go and has only issued, say, 60 seat belt tickets. And look around as hard as he may , he can find hardly anyone not wearing their seat belt. And now he gets to 4 weeks out from quota time, and he's only up to 75 of the 110. What's he going to do? Odds are , make up some offences, Stop someone for a genuine offence and throw in "And you weren't wearing your seat belt". "Yes I was." "Prove it. Here's the ticket"

Bet it happens.

Likewise 220 is a high figure for the quite serious charges of careless or dangerous driving. Nearly 5 every week, for every single cop. Maybe explains some of the creative "dangerous driving" charges one hears of.

clearly u are in the Marketing department Of Tui or blind or living in some make believe world that you wear rode tinted glasses and cotton wool floats around you.

reality check needed

[MIZXR]

The tickets would be processed ever month in the old days so
SPEED AT THE START OF THE MONTH
It worked well for me so far

[bomma]

also, having a quota means that cops are likely to spend more time reaching these than performing duties that are ACTUALLY beneficial to society. ie, when a bike was nearly stolen on symonds st, we called it in with the rego and description of car and occupants. 30 mins later they were still driving up and down the street, no cops around. turns out there was a cop about 300m down the road covering the off-ramp looking for speeders. or when cops turn up at a robbery scene and say "have you got insurance? coz we aren't going to do anything about it so you should claim as much back as you can"

[pritch]

Example include the MP with 5 drink driving charges, a certain dope smoking MP, an MP who introduces a party hopping law then hops party, forgeries etc - not to mention Winstons latest debacle.

Or the Prime Ministers high speed dash to get to a rugby match. The serfs faced charges but the person in charge did not. Perhaps the word we're looking for is hypocrisy?

The law is the law, but whether or not the law or the enforcement of it is worthy of respect, is another matter entirely.

The lawmakers only observe the law when it suits them, but then as various forums hereabout indicate, so probably do most of us... :whistle:

[Ixion]

clearly u are in the Marketing department Of Tui or blind or living in some make believe world that you wear rode tinted glasses and cotton wool floats around you.

reality check needed

Government figures (http://www.transport.govt.nz/safety-belt-statistics-front-seat-200-1/). Argue with them if you don't want to believe it.

Northland Police Distrcit, 99% wearing rates.

Auckland Police District , 98%.

And the cop still has to spot the missing 1%

[T.I.E]

if we all behaved then we wouldnt need police.

wish we could all not speed for 6 months then there would so few police on the roads and they would be out there doing what we all think they should be doing.

sounds good in theory.

oh and insurance levis would drop to. another great fact.

yeah i know ill shut up.:done:

[Ixion]

if we all behaved then we wouldnt need police.

wish we could all not speed for 6 months then there would so few police on the roads and they would be out there doing what we all think they should be doing.



Not so. The effect of that would be that they would reduce the speed limit.

Whether in fact non dangerous speeding does "need" police is an arguable position. It is like saying that if no one ever over parked we would not "need" parking wardens to give out parking tickets.

[Griffin]

Well no doubt we will all have our own opinions on this - Like many issues discussed on forums, there will almost never be 100% agreement.

My personal view - dont speed, dont become a part of the 'quota' collection. Pretty simple as far as Im concerned. Sure - sometimes I speed - but I do it with the view that if caught then its my own fault and I am happy to accept that.

Even if there is a quota - it doesnt increrase your chances of getting a ticket if your not breaking the law.

[Coyote]

Sounds like National and Act are a little more realistic regarding where the police should be directing their attentions.
Not really. It's just an issue that they can play on to get the current government kicked out. Once they get into power they are unlikely to change the system very much. Except possibly having fewer policepeople out on the road, reducing operating costs. A good thing really, put they're likely to take it too far and it's already been mentioned on here that we have too few policepeople looking after the community and looking out for criminals.


Tickets should be handed out based on the immediate danger posed by the action/offence commited, not on the basis of "fuck me, i'm a few tickets behind today, better give this guy a ticket"
A good example: my Weltec tutor was coming home in his Daughter's car. The L Plates had been left on as you've seen so many people do, and it was past the curfew for learner drivers. A cop seeing this as well as only one person behind the wheel pulls him over as they should. Sees that there's a fully licensed driver in the car and the L Plates had been left there accidentally, but still ticketed him. I would've thought any cop with discretion would've said "sorry about that, but please take the plates down in the future so we don't have a repeat of this".

Funny how government has got schools to work in the opposite way. There's almost no such thing as punishment and offenders are allowed to continue on their merry ways

clearly u are in the Marketing department Of Tui or blind or living in some make believe world that you wear rode tinted glasses and cotton wool floats around you.

reality check needed
I really can not bare people who attack the person, not the issue. If you disagree with someone, you can say so but back it up. You're just like the school bully that replies "well, you're gay!". And judging by your typing, you probably were.*

*Yes, I realise that's hypocritical.

[Grub]

I'm afraid that i don't understand all this bleating and whingeing about quotas either. Take step back and think about it for a minute.

- LTSA gets money off your registration fee to reduce the road toll.
- They contract the Police to reduce the road toll and pay them money to do it
- The road toll is caused by the "Fatal Five"; Speeding, Alcohol, Restraints, Dangerous/careless and High-risk driving.
- Police detail their Highway Patrols to target those fatal five areas to stop people killing thmeselves and others.
- How do they know that they're being targetted? They set KPI's on their officers
- KPI stands for Key Performance (NOT revenue) Indicators
- How do you make sure your officers are actually working and not eating "pies" or sunning themselves on the beach? You set individual officers performance targets to make sure they stay focussed on the job that they're paid to do.

People die on the roads, 423 of them last year, by doing one of the 'fatal five'.
- The KPI's are apportioned in the same ratio as the causes of death.
- The cops then just go to the likely places where hundreds of thousands of people are doing those fatal-ready things.
- Those who put themselves and others at risk are then ticketed

It alll seems incredibly sensible to me.

[scumdog]

Tickets should be handed out based on the immediate danger posed by the action/offence commited, not on the basis of "fuck me, i'm a few tickets behind today, better give this guy a ticket"

So if the cop has over-stepped his quota it would be OK for him to ignore all but the most dangerous offending eh??

Well SOMEBODY has to help him reach his quota...

[PeteMun]

Not sure if this has been posted before but its worth a look

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7ZKpX9kWhY

[scumdog]

But by my observation, and backed up by statistics, non-wearing of seat belts is quite rare. Surevys in Dorkland show something like 99% of people wear them (that are required to).

You're kidding me, right?

I just mtb'd home from work, one Imperial mile.

15 or less cars went the other way and THREE of them had a seat-belt-less drivers, lordy-knows how many passengers were the same.

[Solo]

Sure traffic infringements should be fined, but the trouble with quota's is that police are more likely to fill their quota's at well known easy spots (long straight roads where people do 56kpm), rather than the hard to get, but real dangerous drivers.

[Naki Rat]

Highway Patrol is focused on traffic, as far as i'm aware, they won't be responding to the rape that is happening on the other side of town anyway, and i'm sure as hell that they will attend that fatal accident, even if they are 1 ticket short of their target.

Agreed, BUT The decicision occurs further up the food chain. Traffic offence policing is the easy dollar earner for the Police (read: Government) so where do you think the funding/focus for police activities is going to be directed.

At least the Nat's and ACT are honest enough to acknowledge the existence of a quota mindset :niceone:

[marty]

And you have it from where that this is not happening???

I used to run a little operation every other Friday. Started at one side of town, had 3 hours to get across the other side, meet at Burger King. I'd buy the winners an icecream. Tickets had to include at least 1 WOF, 1 reg, 1 RUC and 1 unlicenced driver. I had a points scale for severity of offences (like 1 for a WOF, 10 for an EBA, 20 for a stolen car etc)

More often than not, because of some profile targeting, it would end up in at least 1 stolen car with offenders, an EBA or 2, and an arrest for someone on warrant for failing to appear.

We could have just sat around eating donuts I suppose.

One time, a guy who I was processing for EBA was bleating about how I should have been out there catching rapists and kiddy fuckers. Ironically, he had just arrived back in the country after being away for 15 years, having done a runner after being charged with raping and sodomising the kids in his scout group. He had changed his name, however I was suspicious about something, and fingerprinted him. A good day. I bought myself an icecream for that one (sprinkled with 100's & 1000's too....)

[The Stranger]

So if the cop has over-stepped his quota it would be OK for him to ignore all but the most dangerous offending eh??


Well there's a leap of logic (I use the term VERY loosely).
How did you infer that from his comment? Have you been drinking at work again scummy?

[Swoop]

Would you be happier if they all sat around all day and did nothing?
We pay politicians for that...

Might as well have a load of robots out there.
They are called "speed cameras". Much more efficient since the donut : ticket ratio is much lower!

All together now... "there is no quota".:rolleyes:

[brendonjw]

So that explains the ticket for doing 54 in a 50k area my mate got :bash: (watch out along Redoubt rd in Manukau :blink:

[rastuscat]

A cop once told me there used to be a quota, but now he's allowed to write as many as he wants.

Tee hee.:banana:

[rastuscat]

Traffic offence policing is the easy dollar earner for the Police (read: Government) so where do you think the funding/focus for police activities is going to be directed

The money from tickets doesn't go to the police. Sorry, your theory is a dead duck.

[jafar]

And you have it from where that this is not happening???

From the same place that says there are no quota's :shutup::2guns:

[Naki Rat]

"Traffic offence policing is the easy dollar earner for the Police (read: Government) so where do you think the funding/focus for police activities is going to be directed"

Reply With Quote
The money from tickets doesn't go to the police. Sorry, your theory is a dead duck.

What part of the Police collecting money for the government don't you understand :doh:

[jafar]

But but but .... if you don't speed then you don't get to pay the voluntary taxation levied by the po lice.;)

[awayatc]

SPEED AT THE START OF THE MONTH


And slow down at the end......

Agree

:scooter:

[igor]

Government figures (http://www.transport.govt.nz/safety-belt-statistics-front-seat-200-1/). Argue with them if you don't want to believe it.

Northland Police Distrcit, 99% wearing rates.

Auckland Police District , 98%.

And the cop still has to spot the missing 1%

and you believe statistics. no one ever jemmied stats, another "Yeah Right" moment. wake up - wake up - reality check

[Ixion]

I'm afraid that i don't understand all this bleating and whingeing about quotas either. Take step back and think about it for a minute.

- LTSA gets money off your registration fee to reduce the road toll.
- They contract the Police to reduce the road toll and pay them money to do it
- The road toll is caused by the "Fatal Five"; Speeding, Alcohol, Restraints, Dangerous/careless and High-risk driving.
- Police detail their Highway Patrols to target those fatal five areas to stop people killing thmeselves and others.
- How do they know that they're being targetted? They set KPI's on their officers
- KPI stands for Key Performance (NOT revenue) Indicators
- How do you make sure your officers are actually working and not eating "pies" or sunning themselves on the beach? You set individual officers performance targets to make sure they stay focussed on the job that they're paid to do.

People die on the roads, 423 of them last year, by doing one of the 'fatal five'.
- The KPI's are apportioned in the same ratio as the causes of death.
- The cops then just go to the likely places where hundreds of thousands of people are doing those fatal-ready things.
- Those who put themselves and others at risk are then ticketed

It alll seems incredibly sensible to me.

Your argument is defective (you don't work for the Sheeple , by any chance?)

Assuming, for the sake of argument your assertion that the road toll is caused by the "fatal Five" (which is polemic, not science, but lets run with it for the moment).

Most people can identify the two rcommon factors of the crashes that cause deaths. They occur on roads which are dangerous. We all know that there are roads that are "technical". Where most people take it easy (realising it's a dangerous bit of road) ; but some are foolhardy. Where people come to grief. And they involve drivers with inadequate skill levels.

What then would be the most effective way to reduce those crash numbers? Clearly, to station marked cars on the dangerous roads. They would catch (and ticket) some of the foolhardy ones . Who will slow down (one does when there's a cop there!). And many will slow down , seeing the marked cop (or picking up his radar broadcast). And will thus avoid both ticket and pain. Net result, a few tickets written, and many crashes prevented. Bad result. Quota not met. So, the police won't do that. It merely prevents crashes, which is not their purpose.

Instead they will do what we know they do. They will find a suitable bit of road, where a speed somewhat in excess of 100kph is perfectly safe , and where even the prudent driver may be lured over the limit. The ends of passing lanes, and downhill slopes with good road surface and clear visibility are favourite spots. You can name you own . Net result, many tickets written no crashes at all prevented ( because there never are any in that spot anyway). Good result. Quota met. And that's all that counts.

They do not at all "go to the likely places where hundreds of thousands of people are doing those fatal-ready things". They in fact do the exact reverse. They go to the places where people are NOT doing those fatal ready thing, because that is where they will find the easiest quota.

Similarly, cops will routinely ignore atrociously bad driving, simply because it does not come into the "fatal five" category . Yet issue tickets for offence swhere there is no dnager and the offence is merely technical. Because it's quota that counts , not safety.




and you believe statistics. no one ever jemmied stats, another "Yeah Right" moment. wake up - wake up - reality check


Perhaps. But , in that case how do you justify hammering speeding. The justification for that policy is based on , wait for it, yep, statistics. And if you say they're wrong - then the speeding policy is also invalid. can't have it both ways. Wake up, Mr Igor. Reality check. The whole of the traffic policing policy you so earnestly defend is based on a myth. You just said so.




You're kidding me, right?

I just mtb'd home from work, one Imperial mile.

15 or less cars went the other way and THREE of them had a seat-belt-less drivers, lordy-knows how many passengers were the same.


Yep. Statistics again. Which of course, like Mr Igor, you can claim to be "jemmied". But in that case, so equally are the statistics that say that non-wearing of seat belts is a significant cause of the road toll. So why are you enforcing it?

Actually, the figure is correct, by personal observation. We're a law abiding lot up here. Can't speak for you Southerners, though

[Ixion]

But but but .... if you don't speed then you don't get to pay the voluntary taxation levied by the po lice.;)

Unfortunately, that theory doesn't work either.

There's a good many bikers have ended up paying the "voluntary" taxation, when they weren't speeding.

cos "The noise your bike was making, you must have been speeding". Or :
"My radar picked up SOMEONE speeding. Could have been any of the half dozen vehicles in range. But only one of them is a motorbike. Here's your ticket" Or:
"Mrs Grundy (who is 97) states that a blue and white motorbike passed her doing at least 500 kph. You're riding a blue and white motorbike. That'll do, here's your ticket". Or :
"I hate you bikers. And I'm in a sweepstakes with the other cops to see who can pull the greatest number of motorcycle licences. I don't really know what speed you were doing , but I want to win the sweepstakes. Here's your ticket" (The sweepstakes bit is true BTW). Or :
"I dunno if you were speeding or not cos I didn't get a lock on you. But I'm short of quota , and you can't prove you WEREN'T speeding. here's your ticket".

[Toaster]

Simple?
If the law is an ass, should it be blindly followed?


If those responsible for creating the laws openly flout or show disdain for the laws they create should they really expect anything but disobediance from the rest of us?
Example include the MP with 5 drink driving charges, a certain dope smoking MP, an MP who introduces a party hopping law then hops party, forgeries etc - not to mention Winstons latest debacle.

In your opinion it may be an ass, but that is just it - your opinion. Bitter for getting a few tickets huh? Your fault if you did, not the cops.

MP's hardly set a moral standard for us to follow. Poor example.

Would you jump off a cliff just because someone else did it? Just because there are hypocrites liars and cheats out there - it does not mean to say we need to be, just because they are.

Without rules and laws, what do you really think we'd be like if anyone could do whatever they liked? Imagine the road toll for a start.... how many people you know and care for would be hurt or killed if it was up to anyone to ride or drive however they wished?

[Toaster]

We pay politicians for that...

Ain't that the truth. They waste taxpayers hard earned money with their egotistic arguments, childish behaviour and general dicking around - it's no wonder they censor the chamber TV cameras.

[Conquiztador]

I don't have a problem with tickets when they are deserved. But to do a "shit, almost end of month and I need heaps of them written, better get busy" attitude has nothing to do with making the roads safer.

[Toaster]

I don't have a problem with tickets when they are deserved. But to do a "shit, almost end of month and I need heaps of them written, better get busy" attitude has nothing to do with making the roads safer.

Agreed - but one would have to wonder what the cop was doing all month to get into that position.... if its HP staff - I doubt it would be paperwork for criminal cases before the courts. Maybe a run of drink drive cases going to hearings perhaps.

[Ixion]

..
Without rules and laws, what do you really think we'd be like if anyone could do whatever they liked? Imagine the road toll for a start.... how many people you know and care for would be hurt or killed if it was up to anyone to ride or drive however they wished?

An invalid argurment. Do not let the homonymic gentleman see that. Noone is proposing that there be no laws, or rules. But laws and rules are of several types.

Some are those of general agreement. For instance, the "left rule". Clearly it would be unwise for traffic to promiscously decide which side of the road to drive on. So , by more or less mutual agreement, it was decided "Everyone will keep left". That is clear and simple. I doubt anyone disagrees with that rule (or at any rate the bit about everyone sticking to the same side.)

Others of of the "fair's fair" variety. For instance, give way and stop sign rules. Someone has to give way, or bangs result. The authorities decide who. Over time, everyone gets a fair turn.

But speeding rules are none of these. The speed limit is not one of mutal agreement (which is why so many people break it). Nor is it one where there is a compelling reason why a rule must exist. Some bureaucrat decided that noone should be allowed to drive at more than 100kph. Why ? Noone knows? Does my driving at 120kph cause anyone else a problem (assuming that my 120 is acceptably safe) . No. It is not like a give way rule where my breaking it disadvantages someone else.

You ask (somewhat fatuously) "how many people you know and care for would be hurt or killed if it was up to anyone to ride or drive however they wished". Which noone proposes. But the question that might be asked in this context is "how many people you know and care for would be hurt or killed if it was up to anyone to ride or drive at whatever speed was safe for them on that road under those conditions". The answer is very probably , "no more than under the present dispensation , and possibly fewer" .

If there were no speed limit, would people , on average , drive faster?h Probably not. They might well drive slower (Mabel notoriously drives up to the speed limit. She does not feel safe at that speed but she feels she ought to because the sign says 100). A few unwise people would drive at speeds inappropriate for their skills or the conditions. They can easily be dealt with under the existing dangerous driving rules, or, if desired, a new law of "inappropriate speed". Wouuld there be more crashes ? Almost certainly not . Would the road toll go up. Probably not.

So the speed limit is not there (as other road rules are ) because there must be SOME rule. Or because there is any valid evidence that 100kph is a magical figure beyond which quantum effects cause molecular disintegration. Some bureaucrat years ago, following the universal obsession of the Sheeple for controlling other peoples lives, reasoned that people could not possibly be allowed to make decisions for themselves. The Sheeple exist, after all, to decide for them. And allowing people to decide what speed to drive at violated every control freak tenet of the Sheeples' existence. So, we have a speed limit. It is doubtful if it serves any valid purpose (other than to gather revenue). Only the gullible are traduced by the propaganda of the Sheeple: most folk regard it as something that has to be lived with, but should be ignored when safe to do so.

But a wee flaw still existed. Cops, for the most part, are sensible people. Not Sheeple. So they tended to sometimes turn a blind eye to someone speeding "Can't see any harm in that on this bit of road. Just give him a wee headlamp flash, eh". Anathema. So, the Sheeple decreed that there must be quotas. The cops must be FORCED to enforce the speed limit. They must be allowed no discretion. And, strictly, they are not. Police policy states that a police officer must ticket any vehicle exceeding 110kph (or equivalent for other zones) in every single case. Of course many cops come from Nelson , and share that heroes visual impairment. Long may they do so!).

[maybe]

I read earlier a comment if we break the law we have nothing to complain about, if everyone stopped traffic offences there would be no quotas:rockon:

[Mr Merde]

Once again our laws are decended from those enacted in the UK.

The first motorway in the UK, the M1, used to have no speed limit.

They had a large number of crashes and so decided to reduce the maximun speed allowable.

How did they come to the magic 70mph speed?

Simple

A British MP , Barbara Castle ( I think), announced at the time that she wouldnt like to drive at over 70mph and magically that is what the speed becamew.

In the olden days when NZ was in MPH and not KPH the top speed on the Auckland motorway was 70mph (112kph), round the bstreets in town it was 30 mph (50 kph) etc.

Came the fuel crisis and the carless days and those in POWER decided to drop the speed to 80 kph (correct me if I am wrong I wasnt here then).

Then when things got a little better they raised the speed to 100 kph (62 mph).

Efectively dropping the speed by 10 kph.

The big problem here in my personal opinion is not the speeding but the state of the roads, They are not even 2nd class roads compared to most European, US and Aussie roads.

[pete376403]

When I started driving the NZ open road limit was 55 (MPH) When the first fuel crisis (67?) occurred, the open road limit was dropped to 50 (MPH) plus we got carless days.
Once that was over it went back up to 55 - when metrics came in 55 didn't equate to any nice round figure so it went up to 60 MPH / 100 KMH.

Now local bodies can set limits and the speed is all over the place - anywhere from 30 (eg central wellington) up to 100, but never with any consistency eg one of wellingtons 6 lane, median-barrier divided highways goes from 100 to 70 and back to 100 within 1.5 kilometers (Ngauranga gorge)

[nico]

i beleve theres a quota

[<Rhino>]

I dont think its a quota I think its a target, by achieving that target they achieve results: safer roads for other (non-offending) road users.

Its our tax and levey dollar that pays for the police so why bother worrying about somthing that you wont get done for unless you break the law. Simple really.

I have alot of resepct for the police, they do a job most of us wouldnt do, for less money than most people wouldnt get out of bed for in testing enviroments. If I speed, run a light or do somthing stupid then tuff luck, my actions, my responsability. Thats what pisses me off about people with lesser morals that always have someone ELSE to blame... Go for it....give them all the tickets they deserve and listen to em bleeeeeeeet, baaahhhhhhh....

[scumdog]

And you have it from where that this is not happening???

And you have it from where that it IS happening??

[scumdog]

I don't have a problem with tickets when they are deserved. But to do a "shit, almost end of month and I need heaps of them written, better get busy" attitude has nothing to do with making the roads safer.

I'm still waiting for the first time I hear a cop being sacked for not reaching his 'quota'.

I know I don't worry about it.

[McJim]

Here's a question - if thee WAS a quota (not asying there is and not saying there isn't) why would everyone have a problem with that?

Just be careful, don't get caught and you'll be fine. It has worked for me so far....

[Patar]

Here's a question - if thee WAS a quota (not asying there is and not saying there isn't) why would everyone have a problem with that?

Just be careful, don't get caught and you'll be fine. It has worked for me so far....

I don't what the big fuss is about a quota either...

If you don't want a ticket, don't speed.
Quota or not, if you're not speeding you won't get a ticket.


If police are given a quota and they meet said quota, then obviously there's more than that many people speeding.
If people know they're going to get caught speeding, they will slow down = safer roads.

[Toaster]

The big problem here in my personal opinion is not the speeding but the state of the roads, They are not even 2nd class roads compared to most European, US and Aussie roads.

Agreed. But I'd add driver skill (or lack of) being a swaying issue for the lawmakers.

On the whole I feel that riders are better drivers becasue they are more aware as they ride and drive... but that is a mere opinion.

The roads however are pretty average BUT compared to many countries we have done well to have so many sealed roads given our very small population base from which to fund it.

NZ is not and is unlikely to ever be a 1st world country without the resources to fund expansive policies the likes used in a small nation like Dubai. People need to get to grips with that reality. Lets hope that big oil exploration going on out to sea turns up trumps and brings billions in royalties to the crown. it would be a great way to lower taxes and better infrastructure funding - all fuelling growth.... but I'd say we'd have more chance of winning lotto powerball (38 million to 1).

[MSTRS]

I don't what the big fuss is about a quota either...

If you don't want a ticket, don't speed.
Quota or not, if you're not speeding you won't get a ticket.


If police are given a quota and they meet said quota, then obviously there's more than that many people speeding.
If people know they're going to get caught speeding, they will slow down = safer roads.

You really believe that?
And 'getting a ticket' is not just about speeding. Which is a whole other argument....
The problem with quotas (or any other title you choose to put on the policy) is that consistant failure to achieve will simply result in a lowering of the goal post. The tired old argument of 'making the roads safer' doesn't wash. Making roads safer should be about the roads themselves, not the users. We know it is about money (doesn't matter where it goes) and when the money stream is drying up, the PTB will simply drop speed limits (since speed is the most easily detectable and enforceable of behaviours).

[pete376403]

I'm still waiting for the first time I hear a cop being sacked for not reaching his 'quota'.

You never will. But IF the police job is like most others where salary is directly related to performance, an officer who consistently fails to meet this non-existant quota is going to be getting minimum salary increases, passed over for promotions, etc., and eventually leave the job. Sort of constructive dismissal.

[The Stranger]

In your opinion it may be an ass, but that is just it - your opinion. Bitter for getting a few tickets huh? Your fault if you did, not the cops.


Not bitter at all toaster, please tell what it is I should be bitter about?
Do you know about some of my tickets that I don't?
Despite your reliance on it, clutching at straws is not really a good argument.



MP's hardly set a moral standard for us to follow. Poor example.

Would you jump off a cliff just because someone else did it? Just because there are hypocrites liars and cheats out there - it does not mean to say we need to be, just because they are.


No, it is an appropriate example.
They do and should set the moral compass, like it or not.
As any leader should know, the most appropriate way to lead is by example. They are leaders and they set an example, whether or not you agree with it.

And no mummy, I wouldn't jump, I would however laugh at you for blindly jumping because someone passed a law telling you to.



Without rules and laws, what do you really think we'd be like if anyone could do whatever they liked? Imagine the road toll for a start.... how many people you know and care for would be hurt or killed if it was up to anyone to ride or drive however they wished?



The general principal of following a law simply because it is the law is overly simplistic and extreemly dangerous. I am not referring to traffic laws, but all laws. One should consider the law and its effects and implications and be prepared to disobey.

It is largely a given that power corrupts, as it does we tend to see more corrupt laws passed - for example laws limiting our right to free speach in an election year.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

[Patar]

Making roads safer should be about the roads themselves, not the users.

Dumbest thing I've ever read, I'm sorry, but that statement is a bunch of hogwash.

I'd rather drive on gravel roads with competent drivers than on pristine roads with idiots who don't know left or right.
Since when has a newly paved road prevented someone who goes into a corner hot/drunk/anything else from going over the center line and taking out oncoming vehicles?

Now you will say "better road surface means they will be able to tighten up the corner without losing control" blah blah blah BS.
A better corner means people will just go into it faster, it won't stop people from going in too fast.

Being too lazy to look up the stats, I would say the majority of road accidents are caused by driver error, not the road surface.

[Dave-]

the whole thing is irrelevant becuase more than 875 people break driving laws every day.

think a bout it, for every cop you see pulled over writing a ticket - how many PEOPLE do you see run a red light, speed, not give way?

[scumdog]

Not bitter at all toaster, please tell what it is I should be bitter about?
Do you know about some of my tickets that I don't?
Despite your reliance on it, clutching at straws is not really a good argument.



No, it is an appropriate example.
They do and should set the moral compass, like it or not.
As any leader should know, the most appropriate way to lead is by example. They are leaders and they set an example, whether or not you agree with it.

And no mummy, I wouldn't jump, I would however laugh at you for blindly jumping because someone passed a law telling you to.





The general principal of following a law simply because it is the law is overly simplistic and extreemly dangerous. I am not referring to traffic laws, but all laws. One should consider the law and its effects and implications and be prepared to disobey.

It is largely a given that power corrupts, as it does we tend to see more corrupt laws passed - for example laws limiting our right to free speach in an election year.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Are you really Dangerous Bastard???????????

[marty]

I don't have a problem with tickets when they are deserved. But to do a "shit, almost end of month and I need heaps of them written, better get busy" attitude has nothing to do with making the roads safer.

Serious question:

in the absence of having some performance indicators/KPI/KDRs linked to infringement outputs, how would you suggest traffic police officers are appraised/monitored?

[Naki Rat]

Serious question:

in the absence of having some performance indicators/KPI/KDRs linked to infringement outputs, how would you suggest traffic police officers are appraised/monitored?

Appraising civil servants' performance. :rofl: What a novel idea - it'll never happen (or at least not in any form that will have meaningfulness) :no:

[MSTRS]

Dumbest thing I've ever read, I'm sorry, but that statement is a bunch of hogwash.

I'd rather drive on gravel roads with competent drivers than on pristine roads with idiots who don't know left or right.
Since when has a newly paved road prevented someone who goes into a corner hot/drunk/anything else from going over the center line and taking out oncoming vehicles?

Now you will say "better road surface means they will be able to tighten up the corner without losing control" blah blah blah BS.
A better corner means people will just go into it faster, it won't stop people from going in too fast.

Being too lazy to look up the stats, I would say the majority of road accidents are caused by driver error, not the road surface.

I'm talking about that erroneous term "Making the roads safer..." - when what is meant is making motorists drive in such a way as to not cause crashes etc. Semantics, I hear you say? Certainly, but to be understood one must say what one means.
You make much of the surface of a road...obviously that is something that is important to you? But I refer more to the design of roads - ie corners that tighten, run off-camber, poor repairs.
You also seem to think that if roads were 'perfect' that motorists would drive them like maniacs. I never said that. And wouldn't, either. About all you said that I'd agree with is your last sentence. Because even if all roads were straight, with no adjacent opposing lane/s, perfect seal surface and lowered speed limit...people will still manage to kill themselves/others. And when some shiny automaton from bullshit castle harps on about "It's working"...I think to myself that improved roads, retrofitted median barriers and better car design obviously are a total waste of resources. <_<

[Ocean1]

Serious question:

in the absence of having some performance indicators/KPI/KDRs linked to infringement outputs, how would you suggest traffic police officers are appraised/monitored?

No it's not.

A serious question would be asking why you'd reward the performance of a function that's nescessary only if that function fails.

Check "negative feedback control".

And no, it don't mean yelling abuse at the perps till they behave.

[cosmo_1]

hey gang,ive just scored an 86 vf1000r! took it out for a hoon 2day-goes well,actually the v4 runs mint-im gonna sell my car az to pump a little cash into it..loose az :eek:

[Patar]

I'm talking about that erroneous term "Making the roads safer..." - when what is meant is making motorists drive in such a way as to not cause crashes etc. Semantics, I hear you say? Certainly, but to be understood one must say what one means.
You make much of the surface of a road...obviously that is something that is important to you? But I refer more to the design of roads - ie corners that tighten, run off-camber, poor repairs.
You also seem to think that if roads were 'perfect' that motorists would drive them like maniacs. I never said that. And wouldn't, either. About all you said that I'd agree with is your last sentence. Because even if all roads were straight, with no adjacent opposing lane/s, perfect seal surface and lowered speed limit...people will still manage to kill themselves/others. And when some shiny automaton from bullshit castle harps on about "It's working"...I think to myself that improved roads, retrofitted median barriers and better car design obviously are a total waste of resources. <_<

***Caution, Waffle***

There are standards that govern the design of roads, standards designed for road users with a free speed up to the 95th percentile (I believe it's the 95th, can't quite remember my schooling on the subject), but often times these design parameters cannot be followed due to terrain restrictions.

Now here for the kicker that will annoy anyone who hates the fact that cops sit and give tickets on the straights to "improve road safety".

Roads are designed in 'speed environments' most dairy flats and other areas where there aren't big restrictions on the layout of a road are of a speed environment of 110km/h, meaning that the geometry of the roads is designed so that anyone travelling at 110km/h can do so in complete mechanical safety (i.e the car isn't going to suddenly lose traction around a corner).
Other areas where the road is more constricted and corners have to be sharper than engineers would like, the speed environment is decreased to say 75km/h where to road geometry suits that of a car travelling at 75km/h, yet the speed limit stays the same at 100km/h.

***My Point***

While police filling out their quota by placing themselves on a large straight where people often times speed, may be annoying and not seem to "improve road safety", it should with any luck get them to slow down from going say 130 in a 110 environment and 100 in a 75 environment to 80 in a 75 environment, thus increasing road safety.

And I know these design principles didn't exist/weren't adhered to 20 years ago when many roads were designed, they are slowly being redesigned but because of our small population base and huge land mass, taxes can only go so far, and in fact the revenue generated from ticket quotas help pay for your roads to be improved.

[Ixion]

Serious question:

in the absence of having some performance indicators/KPI/KDRs linked to infringement outputs, how would you suggest traffic police officers are appraised/monitored?


Well here's some thoughts:

No of *contacts*. Not tickets. Contacts with the public.
No of crashes in the district (obvious a district wide one , not a personal KPI). All crashes not just injury one. Trend thereof.
Feedback from the public!
Surveys. how many people run red lights , when there *isn't* a cop watching. how many wear seatbelts. How many drive *under the limit in bad conditions (that last is the real KPI of a traffic force.)
I once suggested that cops should give "merit points". Like demerit points but in reverse. Awarded for observed safe considerate sensible driving. The top traffic cop at the time laughed out loud. Yet educators know that postive reinforcement beats negative reinforcement aces and eights every time. So, number of merit points handed out.
Percentage of local driver licence applicnats who pass (the MUCH MUCH harder test !) first time.

And why do individual traffic cops have to be so measured? Traffic coppery is a team business. The rest of the team will very very quickly deal with a cop who isn't pulling his weight. So, as loing as the *team* effort is working, why does the individual cop need a KPI ?


Comes down to what you perceive a traffic cops job to be. I suggest you perceive it as punishing people. I'd perceive it as preventing crashes.

[Conquiztador]

Serious question:

in the absence of having some performance indicators/KPI/KDRs linked to infringement outputs, how would you suggest traffic police officers are appraised/monitored?

What about giving a team of them an area they are responsible for (probably already in place?) and based on statistics that is currently available, measure the change that they achieve by the work they do and NOT by the amount of tickets they write out?

You would most probably get a much bigger buy in from the traffic cops as they would have an bigger input in to what happens in their area. A little like departments in supermarkets measure how long they go without an accident.

[Toaster]

I wonder if TUI will make up a billboard like:

"Tickets: It's all about performance management..... yeah right"

[Toaster]

Here's a question - if thee WAS a quota (not asying there is and not saying there isn't) why would everyone have a problem with that?

Just be careful, don't get caught and you'll be fine. It has worked for me so far....

Agreed, and same here! The only time I got pulled over was for winning a prize for "safe riding practices" (go figure!).

My neighbour and I zipped past a well hidden HP unit at around 120km/h on SH16 near Port Albert on Sunday and he/she didn't bother us. Clear fine day, perfect for a ride.

Nice one.... good to see a copper applying the time place and circumstances test to the conditions and leaving us be.

[Patrick]

I wonder if TUI will make up a billboard like:

"Tickets: It's all about performance management..... yeah right"

But "quota" is so much more easier to say, type / write and to spell. Call it what it is. Then the mystery would be solved and everyone can move on.

[MSTRS]

Roads are designed in 'speed environments' most dairy flats and other areas where there aren't big restrictions on the layout of a road are of a speed environment of 110km/h, meaning that the geometry of the roads is designed so that anyone travelling at 110km/h can do so in complete mechanical safety (i.e the car isn't going to suddenly lose traction around a corner).
Other areas where the road is more constricted and corners have to be sharper than engineers would like, the speed environment is decreased to say 75km/h where to road geometry suits that of a car travelling at 75km/h, yet the speed limit stays the same at 100km/h.

The speed limit is 100 not 110 (in case you hadn't noticed). On a basically straight, good condition road there is no reason why a vehicle cannot safely travel at twice this speed. At least for parts of it. But no, the limit is 100. As Ixion said earlier, set more or less arbitrarily using a variety of 'reasons' why this is a safe speed in most circumstances.
How do you explain the 80 limit in the Karangahape Gorge and Dome Valley (for instance)? It's not the road that is a problem, that's for sure.



While police filling out their quota by placing themselves on a large straight where people often times speed, may be annoying and not seem to "improve road safety", it should with any luck get them to slow down from going say 130 in a 110 environment and 100 in a 75 environment to 80 in a 75 environment, thus increasing road safety.
Perhaps I am typical (of bikers?) in that I take my misbehaving to roads where the cops don't sit. What does that say about their program of reducing overall speeds?



And I know these design principles didn't exist/weren't adhered to 20 years ago when many roads were designed, they are slowly being redesigned but because of our small population base and huge land mass, taxes can only go so far, and in fact the revenue generated from ticket quotas help pay for your roads to be improved.
You give Transit (now NZTA) waaaaay too much credit for their design/build practices. We in Napier/Hastings have just suffered through 6 months of having a long section of the Expressway dug up and redone, because when it was built (5 years ago?) the road was made to a design that was outdated 20 years ago. Something to do with the camber apparently 'assisting' in allowing vehicles to drift to the right. Never noticed anything of the sort myself (but then I pay attention to what I'm doing when driving/riding), but we all notice now the shitty surface, with it's bumps, ripples and railway-tracking patch seal.

[MSTRS]

But "quota" is so much more easier to say, type / write and to spell. Call it what it is. Then the mystery would be solved and everyone can move on.

Okay, so it's not you denying the term. Can you have a word with Howard and convince him to tell his minions to stop denying there is a quota?
Thanks.

[Patrick]

Okay, so it's not you denying the term. Can you have a word with Howard and convince him to tell his minions to stop denying there is a quota?
Thanks.

Nah... Tis actually quite funny how everyone gets their thongs on back to front if it is denied... what else would the papers have as a lead story?

[MSTRS]

Nah... Tis actually quite funny how everyone gets their thongs on back to front if it is denied... what else would the papers have as a lead story?

Well, Winston and Glenngate are getting a bit old....
But seriously, if the term 'quota' was admitted, then we could stop arguing about what is meant by KPI, targets etc and get on with the business of playing cat and mouse with you buggers :shifty:

[PirateJafa]

I once suggested that cops should give "merit points". Like demerit points but in reverse. Awarded for observed safe considerate sensible driving. The top traffic cop at the time laughed out loud. Yet educators know that postive reinforcement beats negative reinforcement aces and eights every time. So, number of merit points handed out.
Percentage of local driver licence applicnats who pass (the MUCH MUCH harder test !) first time.

Unfortunately then you'd get the coppers who'd just happen to give their mates merit point because, y'know, he's my mate.

Not all, of course, but a number certainly would.

[MarkH]

Here's a question - if thee WAS a quota (not asying there is and not saying there isn't) why would everyone have a problem with that?

I can't quite see how anyone can have so much trouble understanding that quota = cops picking easy spots to give out lots of tickets.

The anti-speeding campaign ads show a car coming into a corner too hot and killing some kid's mom.

The reality on the roads is that there are 4 lane roads with a speed limit of 50 and a speed camera at the bottom of a hill giving out tickets to drivers who would feel comfortable on that bit of road driving at 80, but because the limit is 50 they split the difference and drive at 65. There are plenty of roads in NZ where most drivers feel safe and comfortable at 15 above the limit - the cops spend their time ticketing on these roads rather than the roads where most drive slower but the occasional idiot crashes when driving too fast.

Really the roads that are the safest to exceed the posted speed limit on are the ones that are most likely to allow a police officer the chance to meet his/her quota. Road safety is something for the advertising campaign, not for a police officer to worry about.

[Patrick]

Well, Winston and Glenngate are getting a bit old....
But seriously, if the term 'quota' was admitted, then we could stop arguing about what is meant by KPI, targets etc and get on with the business of playing cat and mouse with you buggers :shifty:

This is true. We can write as many as we want, the bosses want 1 ticket per hour patrolling. Call it what ya want....

Play away... nothing has actually changed really, has it...???? It is what it is..... game on????

[ynot slow]

This is true. We can write as many as we want, the bosses want 1 ticket per hour patrolling. Call it what ya want....

Play away... nothing has actually changed really, has it...???? It is what it is..... game on????

1 per hour patrolling would be pretty easy to get I would think,especially around the road works etc.In an hour between NP and Stratford any day you'd piss in lol.

What pisses most off is the lack of descretion which is seemed to be missing.Then again when you guys go to a car/bike to suss out why the person was speeding and get abused(was in a car when the cop came over,the driver was pissed off and ranted on about the fine,quotas etc,this before the cop even said any reason),turned out the cop might have let him off,but after copping the verbal said fuck you basically.

I get pissed off if I get caught,especially if it is because I thought I was doing 110km,and get pinged at 114km or so,usually a quick glance at speedo is enough to realise $120 invoice coming.Having said that tough for me,although as people have said the times it happened the road was dry,no traffic just listening to the stereo.

[Patrick]

1 per hour patrolling would be pretty easy to get I would think,especially around the road works etc.In an hour between NP and Stratford any day you'd piss in lol.

Can't argue that one...

What pisses most off is the lack of descretion which is seemed to be missing.

1:1 ratio remember? Discretion can and still does exist... thats where the other 55 minutes in the hour goes toward...

Then again when you guys go to a car/bike to suss out why the person was speeding and get abused(was in a car when the cop came over,the driver was pissed off and ranted on about the fine,quotas etc,this before the cop even said any reason),turned out the cop might have let him off,but after copping the verbal said fuck you basically.

Yep - happens sooooooo often.... ya don't mind one bit issuing out then ay? But then you hear about how much of an arsehole you were for ticketing him when he "was as nice as pie..."

I get pissed off if I get caught,

Me too... sigh....

especially if it is because I thought I was doing 110km,and get pinged at 114km or so,usually a quick glance at speedo is enough to realise $120 invoice coming.

A cheap detection device, that one.... quite effective...

Having said that tough for me,although as people have said the times it happened the road was dry,no traffic just listening to the stereo.

So they say... Two sides to the story, perhaps????????

[Pussy]

Hey Patrick... go and ping some New Plymouth red light runners, you'll have your annual quota in a week!

[MSTRS]

Play away... .... game on????

But in the interests of fairness...whaddaya got under the bonnet? I wouldn't want to have an unfair advantage in the PTW stakes...

So they say... Two sides to the story, perhaps????????

And somewhere in the middle lies the truth...

[ynot slow]

End of the day I'd rather be paying than giving,who'd be an enforcement officer?Same as meter maids/people,get abused for doing their job,hell they don't park the car in a wrong park,or overstay the limit.

[Irontusk]

Well, that was a bit of a read..
Anyways, the way I see it is the government wants us to speed, they do like our money.. and cops NEED us to speed otherwise they'd be out of a job. (There are other traffic issues that they should be dealing with, but if there weren't so many people just that little bit over the limit then there simply wouldn't be enough 'work' for them.)

Also, not everyone recieves an equal message from getting a fine.. example, the overpaid politicians have more money than they deserve and more money than people who actually work for it.

Something from back on page 4 by Toaster.. MPs SHOULD set a good example, if they think the rules that they think up are good enough to force on everyone else, then THEY should follow them too. (There was a really strong example of this hypocrisy pointed out on The Late Show last week, with Sarah Palin (spelling?..) saying it is up to her daughter to decide if she has an abortion or not, but no one else should be allowed that choice)


End of the day I'd rather be paying than giving,who'd be an enforcement officer?Same as meter maids/people,get abused for doing their job,hell they don't park the car in a wrong park,or overstay the limit.

Actually there's a guy (in the states I think) who has made filming meter maids and law enforcers doing the exact things they're supposed to be fining people for a bit of a hobby. One I remember was a cop ticketing someone for parking somewhere that blocked a fire hydrant, she then got in her car, pulled a U turn and blocked the fire hydrant on the other side of the road while she went into a coffee shop.

(I am aware of one idea in here that is the product of a tiny amount of truth and large amount of stupid. The stupid seems to be necessary to put the small amount of truth forward.)

[Patrick]

But in the interests of fairness...whaddaya got under the bonnet? ...


Donuts.... too many donuts......

[Patrick]

Hey Patrick... go and ping some New Plymouth red light runners, you'll have your annual quota in a week!

Not allowed to...

You doing the ride on Sunday 20th????

[MSTRS]

Donuts.... too many donuts......You must spread...


Not allowed to...

You seconded to the donut abuse squad?

[Swoop]

Donuts.... too many donuts......
Not enough information here...

Fillings?
Flavours?
Real cream fillings.....:drool:

[Patrick]

Not enough information here...

Fillings?
Flavours?
Real cream fillings.....:drool:

Yes.... ????:rolleyes:

[Pussy]

Not allowed to...

You doing the ride on Sunday 20th????

I'll have to see how my work commitments go.
Go on... go bash the red light runners... and the wankers that drive at first light with no lights, or just their parklights, on.

[Conquiztador]

I see a opening here... Have donuts in the bag and you have a chance of getting off that ticket. ;)

[Patrick]

... and the wankers that drive at first light with no lights, or just their parklights, on.

But then there will be a KB whinge fest about that occuring... Hard to see if they are playing with themselves or not because of the lack of lighting - Leave the wankers alone, I say....


I see a opening here... Have donuts in the bag and you have a chance of getting off that ticket. ;)

Is that a bribe sir? :done:

[Conquiztador]

Is that a bribe sir? :done:

"Oh no!! I have just baked them and are taking them to my mums place. But there is heaps there, so if you would like some, please help your self... And I expect nothing apart for your opinion re my baking"

[mxracer_nz]

I can't quite see how anyone can have so much trouble understanding that quota = cops picking easy spots to give out lots of tickets.

The anti-speeding campaign ads show a car coming into a corner too hot and killing some kid's mom.

The reality on the roads is that there are 4 lane roads with a speed limit of 50 and a speed camera at the bottom of a hill giving out tickets to drivers who would feel comfortable on that bit of road driving at 80, but because the limit is 50 they split the difference and drive at 65. There are plenty of roads in NZ where most drivers feel safe and comfortable at 15 above the limit - the cops spend their time ticketing on these roads rather than the roads where most drive slower but the occasional idiot crashes when driving too fast.

Really the roads that are the safest to exceed the posted speed limit on are the ones that are most likely to allow a police officer the chance to meet his/her quota. Road safety is something for the advertising campaign, not for a police officer to worry about.

this is exactly the problem i see with the way they are doing things, i didnt realise that bombay straight which is probly 6kms long of the smoothest safest straightest road i can think of needs a speed camera and a cop going backwards and forwards on it, every time i drive along there i see 1 or the other or both.

[scumdog]

i didnt realise that bombay straight which is probly 6kms long of the smoothest safest straightest road i can think of needs a speed camera and a cop going backwards and forwards on it, every time i drive along there i see 1 or the other or both.

MAYBE because if everybody knew NO cops were ever there they would be flying along at 145kph?

I dunno.:shutup:

[Patrick]

this is exactly the problem i see with the way they are doing things, i didnt realise that bombay straight which is probly 6kms long of the smoothest safest straightest road i can think of needs a speed camera and a cop going backwards and forwards on it, every time i drive along there i see 1 or the other or both.

You should see some of the speeds they do get them for on this piece of road, even though EVERYONE knows it is well Policed.... and I am not talking of 111 or so - BIG numbers....

[jafar]

You should see some of the speeds they do get them for on this piece of road, even though EVERYONE knows it is well Policed.... and I am not talking of 111 or so - BIG numbers....

True that, I had a POLICE car go past me on that stretch doing well over 200k and in the wet too. :shit: those SS commies can boogie :shutup:

[mxracer_nz]

MAYBE because if everybody knew NO cops were ever there they would be flying along at 145kph?

I dunno.:shutup:

and would there be a problem with that? if you were to crash along there speed would not be a factor, you`d have to do sumthing really dumb like fall asleep or be drunk, or get distracted cause your dog`s giving you a blowjob..not that you`d no anything about that?

[Conquiztador]

this is exactly the problem i see with the way they are doing things, i didnt realise that bombay straight which is probly 6kms long of the smoothest safest straightest road i can think of needs a speed camera and a cop going backwards and forwards on it, every time i drive along there i see 1 or the other or both.

Nooo!!! Seriously, that place is sooo fab to get profile photos! The best, like ever!!

[scumdog]

and would there be a problem with that? if you were to crash along there speed would not be a factor, you`d have to do sumthing really dumb like fall asleep or be drunk, or get distracted cause your dog`s giving you a blowjob..not that you`d no anything about that?

Stroll on if you think all the above shit does not happen - regardless of what speed they're doing..(I guess you would know about this 'dog giving you a blow-job' thing, - I've never heard of it).

Do you think that if a stretch of road had no speed limit that people would all of a sudden be alert/sober/focussed/cautious etc when they got on to it????

Or are you really intelligent and just trolling?:bleh:

[MSTRS]

Do you think that if a stretch of road had no speed limit that people would all of a sudden be alert/sober/focussed/cautious etc when they got on to it????


I would sincerely hope that a road with no speed limit would be 2 laned each way. That way all the dawdlers at 145kph could be ticketed if they didn't stay in the left/slow lane....

[Mr Merde]

....

Is that a bribe sir? :done:

If it is, I certainly hope that you declare it in your income tax returns.

[Irontusk]

If it is, I certainly hope that you declare it in your income tax returns.

Nah just "have your lawyer sort it", that way you can do the "can't lie about what you don't know" scheme, even though you obviously know about it (well, you know about it, or you are plain stupid and shouldn't be in charge of yourself let alone anyone else) but not on record.

[swbarnett]

Serious question:

in the absence of having some performance indicators/KPI/KDRs linked to infringement outputs, how would you suggest traffic police officers are appraised/monitored?
Would you evaluate a soldier based on the enemy body count or on whether the mission was accomplished?

[swbarnett]

Roads are designed in 'speed environments' most dairy flats and other areas where there aren't big restrictions on the layout of a road are of a speed environment of 110km/h, meaning that the geometry of the roads is designed so that anyone travelling at 110km/h can do so in complete mechanical safety (i.e the car isn't going to suddenly lose traction around a corner).
What vehicle is this "safe" speed based on - the late model recently serviced car with top end tyres etc, or the dunger that just barely passes a warrant?

[swbarnett]

Here's a question - if thee WAS a quota (not asying there is and not saying there isn't) why would everyone have a problem with that?
I have a problem with a quota (or whatever else they want to call it) because it in no way measures the effectiveness of the police in improving road safety.

As I said above, evaluate the mission, not the body count.

[candor]

- The road toll is caused by the "Fatal Five"; Speeding, Alcohol, Restraints, Dangerous/careless and High-risk driving.
- Police detail their Highway Patrols to target those fatal five areas to stop people killing thmeselves and others.
- How do they know that they're being targetted? They set KPI's on their officers
- KPI stands for Key Performance (NOT revenue) Indicators
- How do you make sure your officers are actually working and not eating "pies" or sunning themselves on the beach? You set individual officers performance targets to make sure they stay focussed on the job that they're paid to do.

People die on the roads, 423 of them last year, by doing one of the 'fatal five'.
- The KPI's are apportioned in the same ratio as the causes of death.
- The cops then just go to the likely places where hundreds of thousands of people are doing those fatal-ready things.
- Those who put themselves and others at risk are then ticketed



Unadulterated spin that misses a lot of critical considerations. The flaw in this "big lie" model is two-fold.
1. The road toll is NOT caused as you say (or cite) by the "Fatal Five"; Speeding, Alcohol, Restraints, Dangerous/careless and High-risk driving.
2. they contribute but it doesn't logicly follow that the identified behaviours are the best or most responsive targets for intervention out of all true options. Or that the interventions used of primarily issuing tickets/fines are effective.
THERE ARE 19 FACTORS THAT MAY CONTRIBUTE TO CRASHES - all are usually accomodated in overseas crash report forms, providing a real picture.

Our Govenment in setting up the Resource Allocation Model Experiment in the mid 90's decided the biggest factors that were easily turned into revenue raising enforcement focuses were those mentioned above. this is all documented in LTSA working papers 1-7.

It then got one Mr Jones to set up the traffic crash reports to pretty exclusively collect data on speed, alcohol and safety belts - eliminating the prior and typical complexity. When only 3 horses are in the race (now 4 with intersections) only those 3 horses will be seen to continually come in as leading factors. Even if they are number 17, 18 and 19 out of the 19 main crash contributants in reality.

For example if "external distractions" like pretty girls factored in 90% of NZ crashes versus speed in say 20%, dueto the set up of crash reports and the placement by them of blinkers on investigating cops with restricted checkboxes - the stats will show speed as being high ranking and pretty girls will never get a mention.

The statistical and PR system is set up mainly to justify revenue collecting - thats why our cops get about the shortest module in crash investigation out of International forces. The govt is well aware based on its own data analysis at MOT that
1. The fatal 5 are not all the leading toll causes, in fact far from it with some
2. That the enforcement model ie quotas, does nothing to reduce the road toll associated with the fatal 5 - with one exception ie seatbelt enforcement works.

The proof of this is in internal e-mails my org acquired where MoT scientists provide ROCK SOLID evidence that the only relationship of quotas to road safety (bar seatbelts) is that they make it worse. And within which it is recommended govt "ignorethe results and try to believe it's working".

Polices paper "Effective Road Policing in NZ" by Jones (Trentham library) discusses the quota experiment and admits there is no discernible relationship between quotas, as used here for several years now, and reduced road trauma. Actually numerous reports and audits show this - the Duignan Taylor report done for MoT is a good one. Shows dbling or tripling speed tickets reduced speed crashes by 0.08% btw 03-05. That is - no impact.

Does anyone really believe the new intersection quotas will be any more successful than other ones have been? The premise that intersection crashes happen because drivers are bad and deliberately take risks so punishment threat will deter is flawed. Most are trying to survive. If they mismanage intersections it is usually gap misjudgements due to inexperience, inattention from widespread fatigue, aging population or alcohol or drugs.

Cause is not addressed by erecting wheels of fortunes on tv or by intersections so as to imply that all intersection infringers have simply made bad choices because they're risktakers - so just deserve fines.... end of story... problem fixed. Tooo stupid, just like the rest of the system that by and large equates road safety to ticket issue / profiteering (thereby sidestepping provision of real interventions while a public is misled to believe each time they get ticketed that road safety is being conscientiously attended to, LOL - tickets are the biggest diversionary tactic).

And BTW the KPI's do equate to revenue targets. Closely guarded ones. Which are linked to provision of x numbers of boys in blue (general and traffic duty). It's called pimping of the Police, whom Cullen makes pay their way so our income taxes needn't - only direct taxes should we do any of the so called fatal five. Obviously they're not all that fatal, or the high quotas set and regularly met would not be half so successful at funding a burgeoning NZ Police force.

Far as I'm concened hanging is too good for those running this politically expedient scam, at least their day of reckoning is on the horizon.Those who sold out NZ road safety to experimentation (reported at ERSO and International Conferences) in return for for foreign trade deals will be Internationally notorious by 2010. The truth of this despicable chapter in road safety history will out, as legacies of deceased NZ road safety guardians who fought within and outside govt (2 just died lately) ensure this.

[Grahameeboy]

Quota or not, if you break the law, expect to get punished.

What's the issue?

I agree but I guess the fact that Speeding has a higher target than the others, including Drink Driving is a debate on it's own...

[Conquiztador]

Unadulterated spin that misses a lot of critical considerations. The flaw in.... ....as legacies of deceased NZ road safety guardians who fought within and outside govt (2 just died lately) ensure this.

Blimey! Either U really know your sheit, or you can spin a really believable thread.

The ticketing reminds me of trying to teach a kid not to behave in a certain way by giving him/her a smack. I have this recollection that it is supposedly not working and is now banned...

[Ixion]

Blimey! Either U really know your sheit, or you can spin a really believable thread.

The ticketing reminds me of trying to teach a kid not to behave in a certain way by giving him/her a smack. I have this recollection that it is supposedly not working and is now banned...

She knows her sheit.

[cs363]

And it's 'sheit' that more people should be made aware of! :)

[Irontusk]

The ticketing reminds me of trying to teach a kid not to behave in a certain way by giving him/her a smack. I have this recollection that it is supposedly not working and is now banned...

Yup, we've all been financially abused! :(

(The problem with this comparison is, ticketing someone with alot of money is like smacking someone with no sense of pain. And the law lets you spread that smack out over several years as a light poke in the arm every once in a while.)

[Jantar]

She knows her sheit.

And its sheit backed up by research. Well done Candor.

[scumdog]

Blimey! Either U really know your sheit, or you can spin a really believable thread.

The ticketing reminds me of trying to teach a kid not to behave in a certain way by giving him/her a smack. I have this recollection that it is supposedly not working and is now banned...

Sadly I have not had much success with the 'explaining why not to....' technique:(

And possibly the 'smack hands' technique may not work either.

Either way the slow learners pay...:rolleyes:

[Conquiztador]

Sadly I have not had much success with the 'explaining why not to....' technique:(

And possibly the 'smack hands' technique may not work either.

Either way the slow learners pay...:rolleyes:

So you have no solution then?

[Irontusk]

So you have no solution then?

Just to be clear.. what you're getting at is there is no solution, so they just go with what puts the most money in their pocket, right? A greedy a government, now that's a new one :rolleyes:

[Conquiztador]

Just to be clear.. what you're getting at is there is no solution, so they just go with what puts the most money in their pocket, right? A greedy a government, now that's a new one :rolleyes:

Not what I was at. I was asking scumdog is he had any solution to the situation.

Me, I have heaps of them.

[scumdog]

Not what I was at. I was asking scumdog is he had any solution to the situation.

Me, I have heaps of them.

So have I - but they're not KB acceptable...:niceone: