Biker runs from cops [Archive]

madbikeboy

30th October 2008, 15:59

NZ Herald 16.45 30/10/08

Man dead after late night police pursuit
10:27AM Thursday Oct 30, 2008

A 52 year-old man is dead after a police pursuit late last night.

Police have released few details of the crash, which happened on River Rd in Christchurch.

Detective Senior Sergeant David Harvey said in a written statement that the death had been referred to the Independent Police Complaints Authority.

He said police would like to speak to a person who had stopped at the scene but drove off before police got their details.

"We'd like to locate this person and speak with them. We 'd also like to speak to anyone in the area of River Road, Stanmore Road, Gloucester Street last night who was disturbed or who had concerns about the driving of a motor cyclist," Mr Harvey said.

Anyone with information is asked to contact Detective sergeant Wendy Riach on 03 363 7400.

- NZHERALD STAFF

mdnzz

30th October 2008, 16:01

do we really need to talk about this now he could be a kber

as it is not breaching an terms of KB and it is about a biker then yes public info, and even if he is a KB he would have ticked certain boxes about this type of incident.

Furthermore would not discussion of said stupidity be better in the open so that perhaps maybe somebody else thinks twice before doing something as equally stupid and pays the ultimate price, or is it better to stick ya head in the sand and pretend it never happened?

Fatjim

30th October 2008, 16:13

Furthermore would not discussion of said stupidity be better in the open so that perhaps maybe somebody else thinks twice before doing something as equally stupid and pays the ultimate price, or is it better to stick ya head in the sand and pretend it never happened?

Man we get this every time. If someone dies ,out of respect to loved ones you let sanctimonious preaching go for a while to it blows over. Then you can get on your soapbox and spew forth ill-informed tripe all you like.

vtec

30th October 2008, 16:18

Bummer, that's life, you risk all and you can lose all. But hey, I'm sure it was a rush. And it sounds like he'd gotten away and then crashed.

hayd3n

30th October 2008, 16:24

as it is not breaching an terms of KB and it is about a biker then yes public info, and even if he is a KB he would have ticked certain boxes about this type of incident.

Furthermore would not discussion of said stupidity be better in the open so that perhaps maybe somebody else thinks twice before doing something as equally stupid and pays the ultimate price, or is it better to stick ya head in the sand and pretend it never happened?

yes but if he wasent chased he would of most likely survived as well

same as last week when a cop chased a biker he crashed into a innocent car thru a red light
now it just chasing revenue !!

Trouser

30th October 2008, 16:24

David Douglas Fowler r.i.p

Mikkel

30th October 2008, 16:26

yes but if he wasent chased he would of most likely survived as well

It obviously goes without saying that if he had just pulled over he'd probably survived as well.

But I guess it's always the cops' fault.

marty

30th October 2008, 16:28

his name has been released - it was just on the 5.00pm news on the radio.

JimO

30th October 2008, 16:28

yes but if he wasent chased he would of most likely survived as well

same as last week when a cop chased a biker he crashed into a innocent car thru a red light
now all he hes chasing iis revenue !!

yes but if he didnt run he would be alive as well

Odee13

30th October 2008, 16:33

I thought the Cops weren't suppose to give chase when it becomes high speed!
I'm must admit after my last encounter with the Police I'll think twice before stopping!

hayd3n

30th October 2008, 16:33

But I guess it's always the cops' fault.
no when did i say that?
yes he should of stopped and taken ticket wof/ licence/rego check etc

Mikkel

30th October 2008, 16:35

no when did i say that?

I read the line I quoted as "if the police hadn't chased him, he'd been alright". I may have misread it then...

Duke girl

30th October 2008, 16:54

Everyone has their own opinion about what has happened but let us have some sympathy for the family and loved 1's who have been left behind by this tragety. Yes he made the choice to run from the police and now has paid the price but the family of the deceast have paid also by lossing someone who they will never ever see again and who they will miss forever. Condolences to all of those who knew him especially family. May he RIP and lets hope that this tragety is a lesson for us all. It aint worth running from the police and better to face up to your mistakes and live another day.

Griffin

30th October 2008, 17:05

yes but if he wasent chased he would of most likely survived as well

Seriously...? Are you suggesting that its the cops fault for giving chase??? Thats the sort of attitude that PC tree huggers will love you for... and I detest!

The cops have a job to do and I say let them dam well do it, nothing so pathetic as a toothless police force and a wanting justice system - and here in NZ, we have BOTH :mad:

mdnzz

30th October 2008, 17:34

Man we get this every time. If someone dies ,out of respect to loved ones you let sanctimonious preaching go for a while to it blows over. Then you can get on your soapbox and spew forth ill-informed tripe all you like.

Not into preaching :girlfight: and I certainly didn't offer any, discussions can actually take place in a civilized manner even today in a forum board.

Preaching/spewing :crybaby: opinions leads to nothing than what you say ill-formed tripe.

So perhaps discussion might be useful to some and those that have tripe can post elsewhere.

Maybe a little less coffee a few more deep breaths and relax

roy.nz

30th October 2008, 17:44

MAn i hate this shit when it happens because people say hope evryone learns from this and then people start blaming the cops and a slining match occurs. Just wait until the offical report and then see what is said by the cops and people because no one would still agree. Peace out :lol:

Katman

30th October 2008, 18:00

I wonder how many of the fucking pillocks on here who are constantly recommending doing a runner, are patting themselves on the back right about now.

icekiwi

30th October 2008, 18:11

Owl

30th October 2008, 18:15

I wonder how many of the fucking pillocks on here who are constantly recommending doing a runner, are patting themselves on the back right about now.

Not too many I'd imagine.

BBzz

30th October 2008, 18:30

have some sympathy for the family and loved 1's who have been left behind by this tragety. Yes he made the choice to run from the police and now has paid the price but the family of the deceast have paid also by lossing someone who they will never ever see again and who they will miss forever. Condolences to all of those who knew him especially family. May he RIP and lets hope that this tragety is a lesson for us all.

Good comment Duke girl.
He made the choice to run. Didn’t pay off. :(

RIP Dude

Mom

30th October 2008, 18:48

Police chases give me the shits, people die innocently or otherwise.

scumdog

30th October 2008, 18:51

I wonder how many of the fucking pillocks on here who are constantly recommending doing a runner, are patting themselves on the back right about now.

You on drugs?

Cos you and I agree on this point.

$400 worth of tickets (or similar) vs loss of life.

Well worth the gamble eh? eh?.....:innocent:

Fatjim

30th October 2008, 18:58

I wonder how many of the fucking pillocks on here who are constantly recommending doing a runner, are patting themselves on the back right about now.

Doing a runner isn't an easy descision for my. And anyone doing one in town is either stupid or Mikey.

My rule of thumb is if I think I can ditch them quick then its on. No more than a minute or 2 squirt. But I'm not running if they're close enough that I can see them in my mirrors. I like not knowing whether they actually chased me or ignored me.

Like Scummy says, your life, or worse someone elses just ain't worth it.

Crazy Steve

30th October 2008, 19:28

I wonder how many of the fucking pillocks on here who are constantly recommending doing a runner, are patting themselves on the back right about now.

Sucks that he died, But good on him for being 53 and full of life ! ! i hope I can still do runners at 53 plus......

You on drugs?

Cos you and I agree on this point.

$400 worth of tickets (or similar) vs loss of life.

Well worth the gamble eh? eh?.....:innocent:

$400 worth of Tickets....You must be fckin joking right....

Whats 90kph in a 50kph area.....? ? $600plus at a guess ? ? Maybe no wof and no reg $400 ? ? Bald tyres $400 (for both) Maybe even he was on a learners..? ? $600 ish....Now $2000 plus of tickets is worth running....

Crazy Steve...

FJRider

30th October 2008, 19:40

Sucks that he died, But good on him for being 53 and full of life ! ! i hope I can still do runners at 53 plus......

$400 worth of Tickets....You must be fckin joking right....

Whats 90kph in a 50kph area.....? ? $600plus at a guess ? ? Maybe no wof and no reg $400 ? ? Bald tyres $400 (for both) Maybe even he was on a learners..? ? $600 ish....Now $2000 plus of tickets is worth running....

Crazy Steve...

$2000 worth of fines... loss of licence etc... or dead... worth running... ???

madbikeboy

30th October 2008, 19:44

You on drugs?

Cos you and I agree on this point.

$400 worth of tickets (or similar) vs loss of life.

Well worth the gamble eh? eh?.....:innocent:

I just watched 10/7 - a guy got done for lying to cops (false information), 3rd time DIC, and he blew 980 (400 limit). He got a telling off and community service.

My point is - why run and risk killing someone else when the worst that will happen is a little fine and maybe some community service for speeding.

I couldn't be a cop, I would have taken the DIC recidivist out back for some skeletal realignment.

BTW, don't pick on KatMan, he serves a purpose on this community.

Quailboy

30th October 2008, 19:48

Now $2000 plus of tickets is worth running....

Crazy Steve...

What?!?!

I would've though anyone in there right mind would take a $2000 fine over being (or the risk of being) killed.

I think my life is worth much more than $2000. To be honest, I couldn't put a price on life.

madbikeboy

30th October 2008, 19:49

$2000 worth of fines... loss of licence etc... or dead... worth running... ???

$2000? That would cover the most basic coffin. The good coffins start at $5,000 or so. Then there's the venue hireage, and then flowers.

Versus a speeding ticket?

toycollector10

30th October 2008, 19:57

Condolences all around. To his family, friends, loved ones and workmates. A biker dead is very sad. Having said all that, he more than likely had another 20-30 years or so of biking left ahead of him.

If he hadn't had done a runner.

I think he made a bad call. I've made a fair few bad calls too. Hasn't killed me, so far.

I've been lucky.

He wasn't..

C'est la vie...

munterk6

30th October 2008, 20:37

Some people blame the cops....
Some people blame the biker for doin a runner...

I blame the bloody City Care people. If they had swept the wet leaves off the road Mr D. Fowler would be alive tonight and this stupid thread would not exist!
That's just another take on the situation, but there ya go...:calm:

rastuscat

30th October 2008, 20:53

yes but if he wasent chased he would of most likely survived as well

same as last week when a cop chased a biker he crashed into a innocent car thru a red light
now it just chasing revenue !!

Never let the facts stand in the way of a good revenue collecting complaint.

Bute

30th October 2008, 21:00

condolences to the mans family , i had a good friend do a runner from the traffic police in the middle of London [of all places] as he was already disqualified from driving and always stated if he was to get chased by the police he would scarper rather than stop and maybe do time , or big fine.....anyway mid chase he ran straight into a traffic arrow bollard in the road and died instantly , he had 2 kids and was happily married , i suppose these are the decisions we make in life , and like some other guy mentioned in this this post there is a time and place to do a runner ...anyway my symapathies go out the family

Boob Johnson

30th October 2008, 21:01

Never let the facts stand in the way of a good revenue collecting complaint.
Here here! We all know they are revenue collecting, this isn't one of those times. To even suggest cops SHOULDN'T give chase is just pathetic & is a good indication of a persons general IQ in my book.

blairh

30th October 2008, 21:47

now it just chasing revenue !!
I love how every time, we always get this revenue crap. The cops aren't just out there to have fun. This guy broke the law fair and square. He knew what he was doing was wrong. Sorry but I really don't have any sympathy - he could just as easily have hit someone else and taken them out as well. What he did was completely stupid and he's paid the price.

Mikkel

30th October 2008, 21:53

I just watched 10/7 - a guy got done for lying to cops (false information), 3rd time DIC, and he blew 980 (400 limit). He got a telling off and community service.

What is DIC? I know what DUI is, but not DIC... :scratch:

I couldn't be a cop, I would have taken the DIC recidivist out back for some skeletal realignment.

Glad you're not a cop then! Would make a good vigilante though from the sound of it...

BTW, don't pick on KatMan, he serves a purpose on this community.

So does Helen Clark - doesn't seem anyone is giving her any quarter, why then not pick on Katman. After all, the attention will only make him feel better about himself.

As for last nights incident. We could sit down a make all sorts of guesses as to what caused the deceased to make his decision to run and we'd never know.
All I can say is, I'd be bloody tempted to do a runner - city or no city - if I knew they'd clocked me doing more than 40 km/h above. But that is simply because the law is, in its current form, violating basic civil liberties such as the right to due process. And frankly, I find it incredible that the issue is not being addressed or is raising anymore concern than it is. And it doesn't stop there, generally speaking the enforcement of some parts of the roadcode has the potential to be extremely draconian. Can't think of any other legal matter where the prosecution doesn't have to provide a burden of evidence, where the defendant is guilty until proven innocent and there's no need for judge or jury.

EDIT: Oh and another thing. If the poor fella hadn't stuffed it up and killed himself in the process I'd wager most of the people condemning his actions on here would have laughed and bought him a beer for sticking it to the man tonight at the pub. (if it had been one of their own mates that is)

Virago

30th October 2008, 21:56

What is DIC? I know what DUI is, but not DIC... :scratch:...

Older terminology if I remember - Drunk In Charge of a motor vehicle?

Mikkel

30th October 2008, 21:58

Older terminology if I remember - Drunk In Charge of a motor vehicle?

Cheers, it's easy to get confused in this world of TLAs :yes:

Boob Johnson

30th October 2008, 22:14

Older terminology if I remember - Drunk In Charge of a motor vehicle?
It's actually Drunken In Charge of ....

Can be had up for drunken in charge of a bloody skateboard lol.

A mate of my bro n laws many moons back here in New Plymouth took a chick out at the bottom of Morley street hill on a pushie at 4am, if you know the hill it's long and steep, they reckon he must of been doing at least 40km/h +, poor chick :doctor:

So yeah he got DIC'd on a push bike

Dave-

30th October 2008, 23:13

that sucks, condolences to the family and friends.

the best way to stick it to the man isn't to run, it's to take it in your stride, this is something the man cannot do.

Grub

31st October 2008, 06:43

Police chases give me the shits, people die innocently or otherwise.

Yup so people should learn not to do a runner - simple. You can't outrun a radio signal.

Boob Johnson

31st October 2008, 08:20

Yup so people should learn not to do a runner - simple. You can't outrun a radio signal.
You can if you turned off while out of his site, 2 mins later, what chase?

:cool:

stanleychung

31st October 2008, 08:43

Nothing to hide, no need to run. Its very sad for his love ones or those close to him. :no:

Cynos

31st October 2008, 12:20

My friends lived next door to where he died. It looks like he cornered wide, and hit a pile of wet leaves on the road, slipped sideways, and then either came off, and then his bike hit a pole a glancing blow, or he hit the pole a glancing blow and then came off.

Either way he ended up sliding? rolling? down the road into a car, as did his bike, but the damage to the car doesn't look bad enough to have been what killed him, so I'm thinking that maybe his bike rolled over him, but I'm speculating.

I do know that his helmet came off in the crash, but not sure at what point. And he didn't die instantly.

On a personal note, I think that running from the cops is stupid, and that the particular road he chose was even stupider, as it's got a terrible surfacing and getting onto it involves slowing right down for some sharp corners, which will give the coppers a chance to catch up, but I don't think that anyone deserves to die for being a dumbass.

I also feel sorry for the poor bugger because I can easily envisage tumbling along the road, and knowing I'm about to hit a car and die.

Jdogg

31st October 2008, 12:24

Boob Johnson Said
You can if you turned off while out of his site, 2 mins later, what chase?

Its not fucking grand theft auto...Just because you get away with it then doesn't mean you will all the time, its a numbers game , 9 out of 10 times you get away BUT that 1 time you don't, you end up either like this guy (RIP) or you lose your license and become a burden to your loved ones, crash into other road users etc

Do you even think of your family and other road users etc? most likely not with selfish comments like that :bash: . Do you think that public roads are your personal race track? :tugger:

I pity the fool that crashes into me and my family when they are doing the runner it would be the worst decision that they ever make :nono:

madboy

31st October 2008, 12:39

...its a numbers game , 9 out of 10 times you get away BUT that 1 time you don't...From my experience it was 14 out of 14 times you do - and some of those were not so "accidental". And that's just on a bike, we're not talking about my youth in cars cos that was about 30+ to 2. But I decided not to put myself in a position where I needed to try the 15th bike runner.

Look, this is the same ole shite... It's a risk. Pure and simple. Sometimes risks pay off, sometimes they don't - that's why it's called a "risk". Fatjim summed it up - you do a risk analysis and base your decision on that.

Anyone here ever crossed a road? How do you decide when to do that? Ask some people dabbling in the sharemarket about risk, or investors in finance companies.

Condolences to this chap's family, and the poor buggers who have to deal with the aftermath (cops included).

Boob Johnson

31st October 2008, 19:43

Its not fucking grand theft auto...Just because you get away with it then doesn't mean you will all the time, its a numbers game , 9 out of 10 times you get away BUT that 1 time you don't, you end up either like this guy (RIP) or you lose your license and become a burden to your loved ones, crash into other road users etc

Do you even think of your family and other road users etc? most likely not with selfish comments like that :bash: . Do you think that public roads are your personal race track? :tugger:

I pity the fool that crashes into me and my family when they are doing the runner it would be the worst decision that they ever make :nono:
Totally understand your position dude, but what the fella above said is nail on the head, you asses the risk at the time & make a decision. He ran from the 5-0 in middle of city ffs!! I just wouldn't ever do it. THAT is really high risk in my book. Of course it is all a risk but you can't tell me that when you are on a reasonably quite OPEN highway that you know well how easy it is to put a gap between any car then turn off, it's over that quickly.

Mate if the government want to STEAL from us with the quite obvious change in roading policy ie: extremely low chance of getting off tickets these days, then they are making it more attractive to run, it's as simple as that. If you know there is a 99.9% chance you will get a ticket then you have decision to make. Previously in the good ol days the officer was left to make a decision & had a bit more leeway.

I respect the officer (a human doing his job), I respect the badge & the job they have to do I just don't respect our current governments choice to turn our police force into a cash cow :spanking:

Blackshear

31st October 2008, 19:50

You guys need to calm down a little.
I did a runner from the cops today. Came around the corner a little noisy and mr. put on his woopwoops. Noticed my lane was chocca, so went around the bend, and turned left into a commercial building and into their tree garden. Actually got off to comment on their setup, quite nice gardening.

It may as well have been a poll.
1. You run, dependant on circumstances.
2. You run. Never ever, no way.

Ya know guys?
Here's a good vid explaining what I mean.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnMDrv8Mx3E
Hope you guys had a good Friday, don't waste this awesome weekend!!

Odee13

31st October 2008, 20:57

How many people run from the cops and get away?? We don't know!
A lot I would amagine.
A lot of people die on the roads who aren't being chased from the police
How about the person who does stop thinking "well I'm only doing 120 tops" then finds out..No ..126kmph in what is just recently reduced to a 80 area and you instantly lose your lenience for 28 days plus the $630 fine. You can't use public transport because there is none,your self employed,you can't even apply for an exempt. you get caught, your work van gets impounded,you go bankrupt, you can't even face the Missus or the 5 kids you can no longer support...at least I you died trying to get away.. I"ve got live insurance!
RIP Dude!

Trick.Import

31st October 2008, 21:19

Totally understand your position dude, but what the fella above said is nail on the head, you asses the risk at the time & make a decision. He ran from the 5-0 in middle of city ffs!! I just wouldn't ever do it. THAT is really high risk in my book. Of course it is all a risk but you can't tell me that when you are on a reasonably quite OPEN highway that you know well how easy it is to put a gap between any car then turn off, it's over that quickly.

Mate if the government want to STEAL from us with the quite obvious change in roading policy ie: extremely low chance of getting off tickets these days, then they are making it more attractive to run, it's as simple as that. If you know there is a 99.9% chance you will get a ticket then you have decision to make. Previously in the good ol days the officer was left to make a decision & had a bit more leeway.

I respect the officer (a human doing his job), I respect the badge & the job they have to do I just don't respect our current governments choice to turn our police force into a cash cow :spanking:

Fully agree with evrything you say here, except respecting the officers, the highway cops are a bunch of fucking losers in my opinion, no more use than the common parking "enforcer", theres a hell of a lot more problems in this country like the 36000 cars getting stolen each year, the thousands of burglarys murders etc, everytime i drive to work ill spot at least 2 cops driving up and down the motorway but when travelling through the scums of otahuhu will never spot 1, the only places they should be are blackspots on the road not fucking bombay straights

sAsLEX

31st October 2008, 21:38

I just watched 10/7 - a guy got done for lying to cops (false information), 3rd time DIC, and he blew 980 (400 limit). He got a telling off and community service.

My point is - why run and risk killing someone else when the worst that will happen is a little fine and maybe some community service for speeding.

As recidivists in this country get bugger all punishment.

I on the other hand would receive a book , thrown hard and heavily at me for that offence.

Subike

31st October 2008, 21:56

to throw a different light onto this ,
ok, a guy is dead, and he was a rider, not what we want to hear,
but
What if this David Fowler, was a member of a bikie gang, had a record spaning 30 years, and was carring drugs at the time.
Would the thread have the same theme ?
There has been an obvious lack of information as to who this guys was, that makes me curios of the whole eppisode
Just my thoughs

Boob Johnson

31st October 2008, 22:38

to throw a different light onto this ,
ok, a guy is dead, and he was a rider, not what we want to hear,
but
What if this David Fowler, was a member of a bikie gang, had a record spanning 30 years, and was carrying drugs at the time.
Would the thread have the same theme ?
There has been an obvious lack of information as to who this guys was, that makes me curios of the whole episode
Just my thoughts
Yep good point. Running at night & in a city is right up there in the high risk stakes, maybe he had a particular reason as you say.

SpeedMonger

31st October 2008, 23:00

There are only ever two outcomes from running;

Success, so you will probably do it again because you have had a positive experience.
Failure, resulting in injury, prosecution or in this case death.

Risk assessment is probably a bit generous - it is a snap decision, you don't have time to pontificate the pro's & cons. You go for it or pull over.

Once you go you are committed - you have failed to stop, even if you do have a change of heart and pull over up the road. The andrenalin is pumping by then anyway and the chances of pulling over are minimal.

You can't tell me that there aren't officers that enjoy the thrill of the chase.
You have to wonder what the public benefit is to chase a fleeing bike, raising the potential threat to the public tenfold. Speeding in itself doesn't seem to justify it in my mind. If they can't get your plate within a couple of minutes they should pull the pin.

scumdog

1st November 2008, 08:25

...at least I you died trying to get away.. I"ve got live insurance!
RIP Dude!

Oh yes, life is a LOT better when you'r dead........look at all the fun things you can do when you're dead...:wait:

humphrt

1st November 2008, 10:35

i can see the temptation to run is very high, especially on a bike. in most cases we can completely outperform a police car. but the question you have to ask yourself is "is it really worth it". its not a snap decision(only my opinion) its something that you've all probably already made up your mind on and you will(in most cases anyway) act on that. i know that for myself i would probably pull over. although as i ride a VTR250 i would have a hard time keeping away from them.

Subike

1st November 2008, 10:56

the end result of a bad run is always this

Mr Triple

1st November 2008, 14:39

the end result of a bad run is always this

:eek: :rofl:

candor

1st November 2008, 14:54

To even suggest cops SHOULDN'T give chase is just pathetic & is a good indication of a persons general IQ in my book.

Not really - its a good indication that someone is aware of the pertinent facts. In Countries with lax policies allowing excess high speed chases (like NZ) 1-2% of chases end in a death - often the driver, next most often innocents, and many more in those serious injuries NZ has too many of. Chases overall UP the harm - they do not on average reduce the risk posed by a dodgy driver. The people least at risk from them are cops.

In places like Toronto with restrictive chase policies (eg don't chase speeders or young drivers or seriously impaired drivers or discontinue close range chase if the driving is dangerous - that includes the cops eg on undivided highway or getting real fast and furious)... the chase toll was zero in recent years. And there wa no reduction in convictions for serious offences. It stands to reason - because unlike how the spin Drs paint it the majority of dangerous chases occur for small offence triggers.

Its simple mathematics. If cop policy writers are interested in the road toll (truly) they would reexamine their chase policies and adopt best practise guidfelines based on the scientific evidence avail. The fact they haven't, even after continual outcries from innocent victims the last decade, shows there must be a hidden agenda. Hello Michael Cullen :spanking:

To say - they run, they deserve it does not account for the whole picture and is pretty harsh. Better decisions on both sides would mean a lot fewer messes. Runners need to have harsher penalties slapped on them to deter, but the death penalty for them or others is a bit extreme isn't it.

Some of you males with your ?male way of thinking might think people just need to HTFU and accept the consequences of their risks, even death. If so thats a bit sad really as others have to see / grieve over the mess, as well as innocents oft becoming part of it. Its not like mountainclimbing where I guess you can just decide to RIP fussfree under the avalanche. Prevention beats cure.

Anarchy does not reign crime or road safety wise where Police adopt sensible (restrictive) chase policies. More young idiots just get the chance to grow up and to not be idiots, they arrive home after a sensible cop decides not to play cat and mouse... making the situation immeasurably more dangerous 4 all.

Boob Johnson

1st November 2008, 23:23

Not really - its a good indication that someone is aware of the pertinent facts. In Countries with lax policies allowing excess high speed chases (like NZ) 1-2% of chases end in a death - often the driver, next most often innocents, and many more in those serious injuries NZ has too many of. Chases overall UP the harm - they do not on average reduce the risk posed by a dodgy driver. The people least at risk from them are cops.

In places like Toronto with restrictive chase policies (eg don't chase speeders or young drivers or seriously impaired drivers or discontinue close range chase if the driving is dangerous - that includes the cops eg on undivided highway or getting real fast and furious)... the chase toll was zero in recent years. And there wa no reduction in convictions for serious offences. It stands to reason - because unlike how the spin Drs paint it the majority of dangerous chases occur for small offence triggers.

Its simple mathematics. If cop policy writers are interested in the road toll (truly) they would reexamine their chase policies and adopt best practise guidfelines based on the scientific evidence avail. The fact they haven't, even after continual outcries from innocent victims the last decade, shows there must be a hidden agenda. Hello Michael Cullen :spanking:

To say - they run, they deserve it does not account for the whole picture and is pretty harsh. Better decisions on both sides would mean a lot fewer messes. Runners need to have harsher penalties slapped on them to deter, but the death penalty for them or others is a bit extreme isn't it.

Some of you males with your ?male way of thinking might think people just need to HTFU and accept the consequences of their risks, even death. If so thats a bit sad really as others have to see / grieve over the mess, as well as innocents oft becoming part of it. Its not like mountainclimbing where I guess you can just decide to RIP fussfree under the avalanche. Prevention beats cure.

Anarchy does not reign crime or road safety wise where Police adopt sensible (restrictive) chase policies. More young idiots just get the chance to grow up and to not be idiots, they arrive home after a sensible cop decides not to play cat and mouse... making the situation immeasurably more dangerous 4 all.
Hard not to agree, but im talking about current law in THIS country.

The thing that really pisses me off to no end is how easy it is to get a license in this country, it's a bloody joke! If the gubba mint were sooooooooooooooo FARKING interested in the road toll they would have a hole lot more hoops to jump through, similar to Germany, just the cost alone ($2,000 Euro's for a car license) is enough for most to respect it more than we do here, let alone the rest of it they have to go through. It's harder to buy a packet of potato chips than get a car license let alone a bike license here. Hard to believe that this gubba mint is THAT interested in lowering the road toll :2guns:

jrandom

1st November 2008, 23:35

I wonder how many of the fucking pillocks on here who are constantly recommending doing a runner...

Nobody ever recommends doing a runner and crashing.

$400 worth of tickets (or similar) vs loss of life.

Or close to a couple thousand dollars worth of tickets/fines/court costs/impound fees and six to eighteen months of no licence, vs... about the same, but with a good chance of getting away scot free?

Because, as we all know, judges don't come down on you for failing to stop if it doesn't result in an additional charge of some other sort.

It all depends how you weigh it up.

Well worth the gamble eh?

It's worked well for some, not at all for others. One is inclined to come to certain conclusions based on that. The odds vary enormously in different circumstances.

marty

2nd November 2008, 06:24

In Countries with lax policies allowing excess high speed chases (like NZ) 1-2% of chases end in a death - often the driver, next most often innocents, .

really? where does this stat come from?

Grahameeboy

2nd November 2008, 06:40

Patrick

2nd November 2008, 09:54

I wonder how many of the fucking pillocks on here who are constantly recommending doing a runner, are patting themselves on the back right about now.

Gotta spread the bling..... will get back to ya.

All I can say is, I'd be bloody tempted to do a runner - city or no city - if I knew they'd clocked me doing more than 40 km/h above. But that is simply because the law is, in its current form, violating basic civil liberties such as the right to due process.

I'd wager most of the people condemning his actions on here would have laughed and bought him a beer for sticking it to the man tonight at the pub. (if it had been one of their own mates that is)

Read the back of the documents that you get given. You have rights to due process, all in writing on the back....

You could say the same thing about someone who gets arrested and taken to the cells. They get locked up without being convicted...

"Do nothing" really isn't an option.

As for buying him a beer... I would piss in it, and in the beer of the one who bought it for him.

Hard not to agree, but im talking about current law in THIS country.

The thing that really pisses me off to no end is how easy it is to get a license in this country,

But even though it is so easy and in comparison, dirt cheap in this country, the lazy arses still don't go and get one, they merely drive around without one... At $2000 a pop, this would only increase.

FJRider

2nd November 2008, 09:56

the end result of a bad run is always this

or this....

Patrick

2nd November 2008, 10:02

The guy should not have run and there is no one else to blame, however, given that there have been enough stories like this I still wonder what the Police have to gain by giving chase when, as trained and rational professionals, they know the real and potential dangers of 'chases'...in the same vein that we say is doing a runner worth it for the sake of a fine etc, is the Police giving chase really worth the outcome...either way it's dollars or death...what is worth more?

Times change. The moment it gets dangerous or risky, that is it. Comms WIL call it off, if the driver or his partner haven't already done so.

Initially though, doing nothing sends a completely wrong message. Some "chases" end without incident, moments later after the brain fart cleared.

The lawmakers say that failing to stop (pursuit) is a maximum $10,000 fine only. I have yet to see a punishing conviction of any kind for this offence. It is always convicted and discharged - no penalty at all.... That will learn em. Pffftttt....

Make the penaly extremely harsh. Make em become bubbas cell mate. For quite some time.......

jrandom

2nd November 2008, 10:02

I still note that the real reason this ended in tears was that the guy fucked up and crashed.

You can fuck up and crash when you're not running from the police, too, y'know.

Arguing that runners are a bad idea because sometimes guys do them and crash is as valid as arguing that motorcycles are a bad idea because sometimes guys ride them and crash.

jrandom

2nd November 2008, 10:04

Make the penaly extremely harsh. Make em become bubbas cell mate. For quite some time.......

You make it sound almost as though you take it personally. There's a lot of irritation behind that post.

:sherlock:

NordieBoy

2nd November 2008, 10:05

You can't tell me that there aren't officers that enjoy the thrill of the chase.

And bikers don't?

jrandom

2nd November 2008, 10:05

And bikers don't?

All things considered, I think a trackday is a far cleaner buzz.

:crazy:

FJRider

2nd November 2008, 10:12

Hard not to agree, but im talking about current law in THIS country.

The thing that really pisses me off to no end is how easy it is to get a license in this country, it's a bloody joke!

There are are a lot more "hoops to jump through" to get a drivers/motorcycle licence nowdays, than there were in MY youth. ATTITUDE's of licence holders... at all stages, need to change before, any law is changed.
The "revenue gathering" will increase, if there is an increase in licence holders that believe they can get away with ignoring the laws.

Patrick

2nd November 2008, 10:56

You make it sound almost as though you take it personally. There's a lot of irritation behind that post.

:sherlock:

Dunno where you get that idea from, nothing personal at all.

Just that the courts treat pursuits so pathetically, but the end results "can" be so huge, so I guess the courts are saying that pursuits are not a problem of any sort, whatsoever.... A strange message they are sending out, is all......

jrandom

2nd November 2008, 10:59

Just that the courts treat pursuits so pathetically, but the end results "can" be so huge, so I guess the courts are saying that pursuits are not a problem of any sort, whatsoever.... A strange message they are sending out, is all......

I concur. Until I heard otherwise, I always assumed that failing to stop would garner a hefty penalty. It's fookin weird that it doesn't.

Dunno about long jail sentences though.

What's the usual penalty for resisting arrest?

candor

2nd November 2008, 11:53

really? where does this stat come from?

Pursuit expert Geoff Alpert. If interested it's somewhere on the pursuitwatch website which welcomes LEO's.

Patrick

2nd November 2008, 12:39

I concur. Until I heard otherwise, I always assumed that failing to stop would garner a hefty penalty. It's fookin weird that it doesn't.

Dunno about long jail sentences though.

What's the usual penalty for resisting arrest?

Pepper spray on the goolies....

Ixion

2nd November 2008, 13:11

... In Countries with lax policies allowing excess high speed chases (like NZ) 1-2% of chases end in a death - often the driver, next most often innocents, and many more in those serious injuries NZ has too many of. Chases overall UP the harm - they do not on average reduce the risk posed by a dodgy driver. The people least at risk from them are cops.

In places like Toronto with restrictive chase policies (eg don't chase speeders or young drivers or seriously impaired drivers or discontinue close range chase if the driving is dangerous - that includes the cops eg on undivided highway or getting real fast and furious)... the chase toll was zero in recent years. And there wa no reduction in convictions for serious offences. ...

That is interesting. DO you have a source?

jrandom

2nd November 2008, 13:15

Pepper spray on the goolies....

<img src="http://i35.tinypic.com/201ug5.jpg"/>

Ixion

2nd November 2008, 13:16

Read the back of the documents that you get given. You have rights to due process, all in writing on the back....

You could say the same thing about someone who gets arrested and taken to the cells. They get locked up without being convicted...

.

Which is why wrongful arrest is a serious offence. Not just an administrative inconvenience. There is no corresponding offence of "wrongful licence confiscation". And due process is meaningless in this case since by the time the confiscation is deemed unlawful the 28 days will have expired anyway. Like the boy racer laws , it is a law that in practice amounts to summary (in)justice , and is used by the police to "punish" at will.

Boob Johnson

2nd November 2008, 13:24

But even though it is so easy and in comparison, dirt cheap in this country, the lazy arses still don't go and get one, they merely drive around without one... At $2000 a pop, this would only increase.
I'm more focusing on the lack of any real training ie a defense driving/riding course is NOT compulsory <---- WTF??? :Oi:

I agree with Katman also about recommending it to anyone, it's a decision only the individual can make at the time. I will never suggest to anyone they should do it. My point as mentioned is I can totally understand why people even consider it when they once might not have, ie prior to the obvious revenue collecting

Boob Johnson

2nd November 2008, 13:34

There are are a lot more "hoops to jump through" to get a drivers/motorcycle licence nowdays, than there were in MY youth. ATTITUDE's of licence holders... at all stages, need to change before, any law is changed.
If that is the case they then they must have been a give away in weetbix boxs then because I recently sat my full, what a bloody joke. I even said to the guy (after he passed me he he)

"do you think this test makes me capable of riding what's currently in my garage"

And of course the answer was no, shit even the testers knows its a bloody joke.

The "revenue gathering" will increase, if there is an increase in licence holders that believe they can get away with ignoring the laws.
Interesting theory. And thus the cycle continues.

Grahameeboy

2nd November 2008, 13:56

Times change. The moment it gets dangerous or risky, that is it. Comms WIL call it off, if the driver or his partner haven't already done so.

Initially though, doing nothing sends a completely wrong message. Some "chases" end without incident, moments later after the brain fart cleared.

The lawmakers say that failing to stop (pursuit) is a maximum $10,000 fine only. I have yet to see a punishing conviction of any kind for this offence. It is always convicted and discharged - no penalty at all.... That will learn em. Pffftttt....

Make the penaly extremely harsh. Make em become bubbas cell mate. For quite some time.......

But surely any chase is risky...at what point does it start "safe"...

spudchucka

2nd November 2008, 17:56

spudchucka

2nd November 2008, 17:58

There is no corresponding offence of "wrongful licence confiscation".

You could possibly take out a civil case.

scumdog

2nd November 2008, 20:23

Which is why wrongful arrest is a serious offence. Not just an administrative inconvenience. There is no corresponding offence of "wrongful licence confiscation". And due process is meaningless in this case since by the time the confiscation is deemed unlawful the 28 days will have expired anyway. Like the boy racer laws , it is a law that in practice amounts to summary (in)justice , and is used by the police to "punish" at will.

Soooo...you know of a better system??

That is just yet allows immediate action??

candor

2nd November 2008, 20:27

Nats are drafting legislation but not sure it is offence specific - more like an aggravated dangerous driving charge for runners I gather. I'd favour something that pinpoints the issue as more likely to send a message. Police Assn also seems to be lobbying for changes. We just need the community to be represented now - and I'll post more on this angle later.

Ixion - I think you'll find the best info and much of what I relayed here
http://www.pursuitwatch.org/ A thought provoking site.

It's foreign, but relevant, because the 2004 pursuit policy - apparently lately reviewed by PCA and some "Justice so and so" to no good effect (pursuits up 50% to 2000 yearly over the last 3 yrs) is about as lax as they get. In the sense that Officers have carte blanche in so far as that commencement of a chase is discretionary. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even brownness or the wearing of a black jersey (under profiling criteria) is enough to qualify you for a command to pull over... which could strike fear into some with prior bad experience, enough to skedaddle.

Pepper spray for resisting arrest - what about for failing to make it click, I lately heard of such trigger happiness!

Ixion

2nd November 2008, 21:02

Soooo...you know of a better system??

That is just yet allows immediate action??

Yes. It's called "inncocent until proven guilty" It worked well for quite a few centuries. And why is "immediate action" necessary? By definition the rider/driver has stopped. What necessitates any "immediate" action. What is wrong with issuing a summons ? As is done for the more serious offence of dangerous driving. A driver charged with dangerous driving does NOT automatically lose his licence at the roadside (unless he also exceeds 140kph) . Whereas one charged with exceeding 140kph but NOT dangerously does. So how come the non dangerous driver requires "immediate action" but the dangerous one doesn't.

Ixion

2nd November 2008, 21:04

If that is the case they then they must have been a give away in weetbix boxs then because I recently sat my full, what a bloody joke. I even said to the guy (after he passed me he he)

"do you think this test makes me capable of riding what's currently in my garage"

And of course the answer was no, shit even the testers knows its a bloody joke.

Yes, I guess it must have been.

Mikkel

2nd November 2008, 21:49

Read the back of the documents that you get given. You have rights to due process, all in writing on the back....

That is not due process...

Which is why wrongful arrest is a serious offence. Not just an administrative inconvenience. There is no corresponding offence of "wrongful licence confiscation". And due process is meaningless in this case since by the time the confiscation is deemed unlawful the 28 days will have expired anyway. Like the boy racer laws , it is a law that in practice amounts to summary (in)justice , and is used by the police to "punish" at will.

This is at the very heart of the issue.

There is no reason at all why you couldn't just be given a notice stating that you had to hand in your license inside 14 days. Unless you are deemed unfit to drive there is absolutely no argument for "immediate action". If going more than 140 was so bloody dangerous the police should quite simply never exceed 140 in a chase - simple eh?

Failing to stop should be a mandatory 3 months jail.:buggerd:

Why waste jailspace and resources on these bottom feeders - a 9 mm lead injection will take care of the problem right then and there! :weird:
Too bad for you the nazis didn't win the war and we like to maintain an illusion that we have civil liberties.

Failing to stop is a bogus charge anyway - after all, it's pretty damn hard to hand out the charge if the person in question hasn't pulled over.

Yes. It's called "inncocent until proven guilty" It worked well for quite a few centuries. And why is "immediate action" necessary? By definition the rider/driver has stopped. What necessitates any "immediate" action. What is wrong with issuing a summons ? As is done for the more serious offence of dangerous driving. A driver charged with dangerous driving does NOT automatically lose his licence at the roadside (unless he also exceeds 140kph) . Whereas one charged with exceeding 140kph but NOT dangerously does. So how come the non dangerous driver requires "immediate action" but the dangerous one doesn't.

Yes, it just makes no sense at all.

Bass

3rd November 2008, 07:47

I agree with Katman

Unfknbelievable!!!
Armageddon is at hand!!

snuffles

3rd November 2008, 08:06

Long story short.....
The guy was a twat.....ran from police.......lost control........died.....removed from gene pool.....end of story....

Divot

3rd November 2008, 08:10

yes but if he wasent chased he would of most likely survived as well

So you want all fleeing drivers to be let go, be it that they are speeding, just robbed someone or just killed someone???????????????????????

Boob Johnson

3rd November 2008, 08:24

Unfknbelievable!!!
Armageddon is at hand!!
Some people think I am biased, one sided on this subject, not so, never have been, if you had your facts straight you would see I have always agreed with the road safety message (made it this far :blink:)

I just think he comes across as a Neanderthal in his approach.

See when you have someone like KM who attempts at every given moment to spout on about road safety in all manner of subjects (off topic) it gets old & tiresome quick. Especially when it is so unnecessarily over the top.

The delivery has always been an issue as has his attitude toward others in general. A quick scoot through his posting history will show a history of not finishing or even backing up wide unsubstantiated claims that suit his argument. He won't ever debate an issue like an adult, many have attempted a rational, mature debate with him but he very quickly reverts to a potty mouthed little boy with statements like "suck my cock, homo".

Yeah what a winner, fantastic mentor material that is. He has lost his ":ME" symbol due to too many infractions as well <_<

Bass

3rd November 2008, 09:28

Some people think I am biased,.............too many infractions as well <_<

I bet that feels better.

Patrick

4th November 2008, 18:34

... And due process is meaningless in this case since by the time the confiscation is deemed unlawful the 28 days will have expired anyway. Like the boy racer laws , it is a law that in practice amounts to summary (in)justice , and is used by the police to "punish" at will.

Wrong. "Errors" rectified with one phone call, followed up by an email. I saw it happen once. This week.

So..... the boy racer stuff.... Here is my take on it....

If we see someone smack someone else in the head - you must surely be saying that we can not arrest him because he is innocent until proven guilty. Have I got your logic right here?

But surely any chase is risky...at what point does it start "safe"...

Sure - chases can be risky. They often start safe... when they are on the correct side of the road, not travelling too fast, but not stopping either...

Nats are drafting legislation....

Good to hear, but know nothing of it...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even brownness or the wearing of a black jersey (under profiling criteria) is enough to qualify you for a command to pull over... which could strike fear into some with prior bad experience, enough to skedaddle.

Yep - you are corrected. You are wrong.

Pepper spray for resisting arrest - what about for failing to make it click, I lately heard of such trigger happiness!

Yeah.... riiiiigggghhhhhtttttt...... And where did this trigger happiness actually take place for not wearing a seatbelt? What a load of bollocks. Funny, but.....

Yes. It's called "inncocent until proven guilty" It worked well for quite a few centuries. And why is "immediate action" necessary?

To revent further offending perhaps? They were left to continue on, and slam into a happy family. Imagine the headlines now. Police stop hoon, let him go and carnage happens...

By definition the rider/driver has stopped. What necessitates any "immediate" action. What is wrong with issuing a summons ?

Is that what those traffic summons books we carry 24/7 are for? I had no idea.......................

A driver charged with dangerous driving does NOT automatically lose his licence at the roadside (unless he also exceeds 140kph) .

This is true. The law says so.......

Whereas one charged with exceeding 140kph but NOT dangerously does. So how come the non dangerous driver requires "immediate action" but the dangerous one doesn't.

This is also true. But a dangerous driver will lose his licence for 6 months. Not just 28 days...

That is not due process...

The right to a hearing? The right to challenge the licence suspension in court and have it overturned? OK then...

There is no reason at all why you couldn't just be given a notice stating that you had to hand in your license inside 14 days. Unless you are deemed unfit to drive there is absolutely no argument for "immediate action". If going more than 140 was so bloody dangerous the police should quite simply never exceed 140 in a chase - simple eh?

See above - 28 days compared to dangerous - 6 months loss of licence...[B][I]

Why waste jailspace and resources on these bottom feeders - a 9 mm lead injection will take care of the problem right then and there! :weird:
Too bad for you the nazis didn't win the war and we like to maintain an illusion that we have civil liberties.

[B][I]Read the back of any notice - you have due processes available. Use it if you want, don't use it if you don't want...

Failing to stop is a bogus charge anyway - after all, it's pretty damn hard to hand out the charge if the person in question hasn't pulled over.

Which is why he gets locked up for doing so.

Ixion

4th November 2008, 18:43

So..... the boy racer stuff.... Here is my take on it....

If we see someone smack someone else in the head - you must surely be saying that we can not arrest him because he is innocent until proven guilty. Have I got your logic right here?

No. You may arrest him (if the offence be an arrestable one) , but neither you nor anyone else may punish him for the alleged offence until he is found guilty according to law.

And so it is with all alleged offences , and has been since time immemorial , except exceeding 140kph. The perpetrator of that you may punish summarily upon your own total discretion.

mctshirt

4th November 2008, 18:45

If that is the case they then they must have been a give away in weetbix boxs then

They were...and you could get a WOF over the phone :msn-wink:

jrandom

4th November 2008, 18:50

Which is why he gets locked up for doing so.

Heh. Yeah, rightio.

Funny story: following a multi-bike pinged-at-120 situation where I ended up taking the fall and letting the other rider fuck off up the road (actually, the incident immortalised in my current avatar, come to think of it) I asked the copper what he'd have done if neither of us had stopped.

"Well, I would have arrested you both!"

I boggled at the assumptions embodied in that statement.

Patrick

4th November 2008, 19:22

No. You may arrest him (if the offence be an arrestable one) , but neither you nor anyone else may punish him for the alleged offence until he is found guilty according to law.

And so it is with all alleged offences , and has been since time immemorial , except exceeding 140kph. The perpetrator of that you may punish summarily upon your own total discretion.

Gotcha. Understand now...

But there is still the right of a hearing. There is still the option of not doing over 40ks over the limit too....

Heh. Yeah, rightio.

Funny story: following a multi-bike pinged-at-120 situation where I ended up taking the fall and letting the other rider fuck off up the road (actually, the incident immortalised in my current avatar, come to think of it) I asked the copper what he'd have done if neither of us had stopped.

"Well, I would have arrested you both!"

I boggled at the assumptions embodied in that statement.

Funny.... Hard to do, but possible... unlikely, but possible.... but funny....

candor

4th November 2008, 23:09

Yeah.... riiiiigggghhhhhtttttt...... And where did this trigger happiness actually take place for not wearing a seatbelt? What a load of bollocks. Funny, but.....

Well it wasn't a really reliable source (from Lower Hutt way) and one sided version, but just thought I'd check if anyone put their hand up. Apparently arrestee did not belt up in quiktime. I actually cracked a few jokes after being regaled with the story. But I'm sure it would increase compliance - justcould cause a few visual deficits.

From a more impeccable source, a recent wrong side of road chase of an impaired driver that hurt two innocents, in an area strangely experiencing a few too many dicey such chases... was apparently conducted against a someone who stole their family members car, whom Police knew their name, address and prolly cellphone contact. What was the hurry, what was the rush?

Time to reflect on other places that need to catch up with the modern world and get beyond acting out Western movies.

East Cleveland police chase raises questions about policies
Tuesday, November 04, 2008 Damian G. Guevara, Plain Dealer Reporter

A police officer's decision to chase a suspected motorcycle thief cost him his job last month after he broadsided another motorist.

The crash sparked an emphatic reaction from the city's mayor, who fired the officer and called for more restraint from his officers and police across Cuyahoga County when it comes to police chases.

"I don't agree with high-speed police pursuits when there is no immediate threat to life or officer safety," Mayor Eric Brewer said. "Stolen cars, burglaries, [or] robberies where no one was killed or seriously injured are not worth the risk of one of my residents or children losing their lives."

Brewer said he wants the city to revise its chase policy to establish clear rules for when officers should pursue suspects. Police chases continue to be debated by safety officials nationwide as departments try to balance safety with law and order.

A crash during a police pursuit can result in fatal or severe consequences for fleeing suspects, police and bystanders. City governments can be exposed to lawsuits.

At least 18 people have been killed in Northeast Ohio and scores more injured since 2003 in accidents involving police cruisers giving chase, according to Plain Dealer archives. Six of those killed were not involved in the chase; they were either in other cars or pedestrians. The 12 others were suspects.

While Brewer said the issue deserves attention from area safety officials, local leaders have already tried to create a countywide pursuit policy to foster cooperation and communication among departments, since chases frequently cross borders and jurisdictions.

The goal of the countywide policy was to establish some rules for officers involved in chases and increase safety for police and the public, said Warrensville Heights Police Chief Frank Bova, a proponent of the policy. But not all departments were eager to accept it, Bova said.

When officials unveiled the plan in late 2007, only 29 agencies - less than half of those asked to join - agreed to incorporate the policy into their rulebooks. A list of which cities agreed was not made available. East Cleveland did not adopt the plan because it had no representative at the meeting, Brewer said.

madboy

4th November 2008, 23:40

Failing to stop is pretty much a wet bus ticket. I last got charged with that in 2001 when I flew past a cop at 110 in a 50. Long story short, they didn't have enough evidence to charge me with anything else (didn't get a radar lock for speed, didn't see me do anything "dangerous" aside from fly past and disappear) so they went for failing to stop. I pled guilty.

Standing in court, the judge looks at me with a very stern look on her face... "Mr Smith, I'm very troubled to see you had your license back for only two weeks when this offence took place, and this is the second time you've committed this offence." She really f***ed me hard up the arse too... a $350 fine!

Beats a disq or the fines/sentence you'd get for dangerous or speeding.

Bass

5th November 2008, 09:59

Gotcha. Understand now...

But there is still the right of a hearing.

No, not really.
As Ix points out, by the time your hearing comes up, you have done your summarily awarded 28 days well and truly.
My son is awaiting a hearing. He's finally got a date - 3 years after the event!

(and let's not get started on the costs of defending absolutely ridiculous charges - like the depositions judge asking the prosecuting sergeant why he was bothering)

Sometimes the cops do get it wrong.

I know of a guy who was given a ticket because he was the front one of the bunch. The cop frankly admitted that he didn't know which one of the group that he got a lock on - so he gave it to the man in front - and no, they weren't all travelling at the same speed, they were overtaking a truck one by one at the time. IMHO a pretty clear cut case with plenty of potential witnesses for the defence, but just not worth defending.
Another man soured and unlikely to be a friend of the police in future though.

Divot

5th November 2008, 10:21

Can't think of any other legal matter where the prosecution doesn't have to provide a burden of evidence, where the defendant is guilty until proven innocent and there's no need for judge or jury.

Blow over 650 and your are walking for 28 day instantly.

Divot

5th November 2008, 10:32

Anarchy does not reign crime or road safety wise where Police adopt sensible (restrictive) chase policies. More young idiots just get the chance to grow up and to not be idiots, they arrive home after a sensible cop decides not to play cat and mouse... making the situation immeasurably more dangerous 4 all.

They arrive home after a sensible person decides not to play cat and mouse with the cops!

scumdog

5th November 2008, 15:52

From a more impeccable source, a recent wrong side of road chase of an impaired driver that hurt two innocents, in an area strangely experiencing a few too many dicey such chases... was apparently conducted against a someone who stole their family members car, whom Police knew their name, address and prolly cellphone contact. What was the hurry, what was the rush?

Time to reflect on other places that need to catch up with the modern world and get beyond acting out Western movies.

East Cleveland police chase raises questions about policies
Tuesday, November 04, 2008 Damian G. Guevara, Plain Dealer Reporter

A police officer's decision to chase a suspected motorcycle thief cost him his job last month after he broadsided another motorist.

The crash sparked an emphatic reaction from the city's mayor, who fired the officer and called for more restraint from his officers and police across Cuyahoga County when it comes to police chases.

"I don't agree with high-speed police pursuits when there is no immediate threat to life or officer safety," Mayor Eric Brewer said. "Stolen cars, burglaries, [or] robberies where no one was killed or seriously injured are not worth the risk of one of my residents or children losing their lives."

Brewer said he wants the city to revise its chase policy to establish clear rules for when officers should pursue suspects. Police chases continue to be debated by safety officials nationwide as departments try to balance safety with law and order.

A crash during a police pursuit can result in fatal or severe consequences for fleeing suspects, police and bystanders. City governments can be exposed to lawsuits.

And I'm sure all Police involved in chases just KNOW that the driver hasn't killed anybody or is on the way to kill somebody when they do the runner - let alone is drunk/disqualified/stolen the car or whatever.
20/20 hindsight is great eh!

Fuck this 21st century approach where "Bwaaa, it's always somebody elses fault" - don't do a runner, don't crash and you won't have to find this 'somebody else' to blame. :argh:

I've got NO sympathy for anybody who gets killed dong a runner or who kills some innocent party doing it.

Patrick

5th November 2008, 18:43

Well it wasn't a really reliable source (from Lower Hutt way) and one sided version, but just thought I'd check if anyone put their hand up. Apparently arrestee did not belt up in quiktime. I actually cracked a few jokes after being regaled with the story. But I'm sure it would increase compliance - justcould cause a few visual deficits.

For about 10 to 15 minutes....:niceone:

From a more impeccable source, a recent wrong side of road chase of an impaired driver that hurt two innocents, in an area strangely experiencing a few too many dicey such chases... was apparently conducted against a someone who stole their family members car, whom Police knew their name, address and prolly cellphone contact. What was the hurry, what was the rush?

"An impaired driver hurting two innocents..." hang on... If they did nothing and he hurt more, or worse, killed others... what would the outcry be then?

Headline - "Cops did nothing to prevent death/carnage..."

Failing to stop is pretty much a wet bus ticket.... She really f***ed me hard up the arse too... a $350 fine!

Beats a disq or the fines/sentence you'd get for dangerous or speeding.

She did!!! That has to be the biggest fine I have ever seen for that offence. Lucky she wasn't aware she could in fact disqualify you, once convicted of an offence under the Land Transport Act. Section 80(??? I think???)

candor

5th November 2008, 23:11

I've got NO sympathy for anybody who gets killed dong a runner or who kills some innocent party doing it.

The argument is circular & in tune with Patricks. The courts have plenty sympathy for road killers so your lack of it isn't of extreme comfort. Point is what about the innocent parties.

Sure no-one can predict perfectly the outcome of the "to chase or not to chase" dilemna. And thats why arrestees must buckle up when along for the ride?! But plenty of stats can give a fair idea, when the known circumstances are taken in to account. Isn't that why certain factors are supposed to be considered.... though this isn't really "policed".

Maybe or prolly most cops make good calls. What about those who don't - should they be given a free reign to risk innocents lives, or to learn from experience :shit:... only occasionally get prosecuted for dangerous driving if the spin Drs fail and this is unfortunately teamed with a hua of an outcry?

Or can a more directive police policy and criminal code take care of the idiot factor, where it exists on either side? Surely fewer cockups would be better for Police image and create less internal friction. In my book one cock up is too many when lives are at stake. People cover - have seen rank closing in my job too. Yes nurses bash patients.

even so most professionals have tight standards round safety issues - not sure why our Govt thinks that a rape subculture a la Rickards is more worth scrutinising than a chase problem - seen in certain times / places and I'd say indulged in by a certain type of alpha male cop. Is it the feminist element or that only one (or was it 3 on the cop side) tangoed. I'd prefer rape to death or GBH of myself or any community member anytime. Like the Rickard racket, bad chases can breed ill feeling. I'm not seeking to blame cops for outcomes in a general way - only to say there seems to be room for improvement.

Drs and bad accountants get ostracised or struck off, there just seems to be a lot more slack cut for cops and moronic Judges when they diverge from sane activity. At least the cops can say "yes but I put my life on the line" which partly makes up for any isolated incidents - Judges - they just put ours on the line as sport.

candor

5th November 2008, 23:25

"An impaired driver hurting two innocents..." hang on... If they did nothing and he hurt more, or worse, killed others... what would the outcry be then?

???)

I believe (from reliable source within an involved local service) that in said case it was fairly obvious the impaired driver would have toddled home a short distance, or to a mates, trying to be inconspicuous, at a speed far less than the 140 k they got up to and persisted with on the wrong side of a high risk highway for quite a considerable distance... due to the prolly fired up knucklehead crowding him on the tail. This is qualified by fact it remains hearsay, but nothing in the media reports would make me doubt the assessment.

The impaired driver had hurt no-one before the chase - you got that I hope.Then it became a likelihood per chase m.o.

wbks

6th November 2008, 07:28

And I'm sure all Police involved in chases just KNOW that the driver hasn't killed anybody or is on the way to kill somebody when they do the runner - let alone is drunk/disqualified/stolen the car or whatever.
20/20 hindsight is great eh!

Fuck this 21st century approach where "Bwaaa, it's always somebody elses fault" - don't do a runner, don't crash and you won't have to find this 'somebody else' to blame. :argh:

I've got NO sympathy for anybody who gets killed dong a runner or who kills some innocent party doing it.Fine, no one cares if you have no sympathy for people who kill themselves running. But many of the chases end in an innocent third party dieing e.g another motorist. If it only ever harmed the offender, there would be no issue. But yes, most runners must be on their way to bomb the pentagon and should be stopped because we're too pc nowadays, right? btw whats the point of chasing them? They don't force them off the road like in the states, they just follow them on the runners ass which makes them run harder and they dont do a thing anyway exept wait for the runner to decide to stop (not likely after they've already ran), crash or what?

mdnzz

6th November 2008, 07:36

btw whats the point of chasing them? They don't force them off the road like in the states, they just follow them on the runners ass which makes them run harder and they dont do a thing anyway exept wait for the runner to decide to stop (not likely after they've already ran), crash or what?

A good point however civil libertarians/ tree huggers would have a feild day in the media arena over this, court cases would abound and the cost to the taxpayer exhuasting.
Any injuries the perp received would be covered by current ACC laws and there is still the possibility of an innocent person being injured as the fleeing vehicle/bike is pushed off its course.

karla

6th November 2008, 07:44

Fine, no one cares if you have no sympathy for people who kill themselves running.

I care if you have no sympathy.

It's a sorry world that we live in, when people start to lose their compassion.

I care about the people who run, for whatever reason they run for (that we are not privy too but can only guess at using our own insignificant life experiences).

I care about the people left who are going through the grieving process, questioning and trying to understand why these things (it's life) happen.

I care about the people who are trying to do their job, whether it is done "wrong" or "right" doesn't change anything.

I care about those of us who witness this kind of thing over and over again, just because they have been around for a few years, and seem to get hardened to it all. I'm new here and I listen to the older ones, who are wise in my eyes because of their experiences, and feel sad and fearful that I too will start to 'not care'. Then I will know that the bastards have got me ~

but not today, when the sun is shining and there is still a flame of love for all fellow men left in me.

madbikeboy

6th November 2008, 08:31

even so most professionals have tight standards round safety issues - not sure why our Govt thinks that a rape subculture a la Rickards is more worth scrutinising than a chase problem - seen in certain times / places and I'd say indulged in by a certain type of alpha male cop. Is it the feminist element or that only one (or was it 3 on the cop side) tangoed. I'd prefer rape to death or GBH of myself or any community member anytime. Like the Rickard racket, bad chases can breed ill feeling. I'm not seeking to blame cops for outcomes in a general way - only to say there seems to be room for improvement.

I disagree, while I think chases and the "rape subculture" are both important, there is deeper meaning to a culture of sleeze and rape when that same culture is supposed to police and protect. Further, as a male (and therefore not a feminist) I can't really understand how you could make that statement, if it were your wife, your sister, your daughter, you might take it a little more seriously.

Mikkel

6th November 2008, 11:12

Blow over 650 and your are walking for 28 day instantly.

If you blow 650 you still have the right to have taken a blood test by a qualified person in the presence of other witnesses. When that happens a strong burden of evidence will have been collected, witnessed by several people.

Compare that to the hypothetical case of a crooked cop who say he has measured your speed at 141 km/h and that you'll be walking home. No witnesses, no burden of evidence. You could have been doing 80 km/h and you're still in the shit.

Surely anyone can see how the two situations are different.

If the speeding enforcement was to be credible there would always have to be two cops in the patrol car. One driving, the other operating the radar equipment. All measured data would be logged by the equipment and thorough equipment calibration schedules would be enforced. Some places everything a policecar "sees" is recorded by video. Not very many people choose to fight a ticket when they have been invited to sit down and watch their own offense - and neither do you have many opportunities to take someone down for something they didn't do.

scumdog

6th November 2008, 15:53

If you blow 650 you still have the right to have taken a blood test by a qualified person in the presence of other witnesses. .

And you STILL lose your licence for 28 days while waiting for the blood result to come back.

scumdog

6th November 2008, 15:55

scumdog

6th November 2008, 15:57

Patrick

6th November 2008, 17:30

I believe (from reliable source within an involved local service) that in said case it was fairly obvious the impaired driver would have toddled home a short distance, or to a mates, trying to be inconspicuous, at a speed far less than the 140 k they got up to and persisted with on the wrong side of a high risk highway for quite a considerable distance... due to the prolly fired up knucklehead crowding him on the tail. This is qualified by fact it remains hearsay, but nothing in the media reports would make me doubt the assessment.

The impaired driver had hurt no-one before the chase - you got that I hope.Then it became a likelihood per chase m.o.

Maybe hurt no one up to that point. Who is to say that while he "Toddled" home.... fell asleep, crossed the centre line and killed a family of 5 perhaps?

But do nothing to prevent this? Hell no. I would try to prevent it.....

Chases have been reviewed and refined over and over. Each pursuit is reviewed even when the outcome is a harmless ending. You would be surprised at how chases are called off so easily now. Or concerned....

whats the point of chasing them? They don't force them off the road like in the states, they just follow them on the runners ass which makes them run harder and they dont do a thing anyway exept wait for the runner to decide to stop (not likely after they've already ran), crash or what?

Heard of spikes?

Compare that to the hypothetical case of a crooked cop who say he has measured your speed at 141 km/h and that you'll be walking home. No witnesses, no burden of evidence. You could have been doing 80 km/h and you're still in the shit.

Take a hypothetical reality pill.....

If ya doing 80, why would it be talked up to 141? Why would they look at ya in the first place?

(Clue - the fact you were doing 141 or more in the 1st place actually kinda gives it away a little....)

In a lot of cases the chased driver will carry on trying to escape in their vehicle regardless to the damage they have caused or their vehicle has sustained, - as long as the engine still runs and the wheels still turn they will try to flee.

Don't forget the chases that have ended badly, after the pursuit has been called off....

In court yesterday the guy got an $800 fine - and that was all he had done, failed to stop for the cop cars blue&red lights.

Of course the fact he didn't stop because of his level of intoxication didn't help his case.

(Did runner, bailed out of moving car and disappeared into the bush)

Hope the dog got a feed?

wbks

6th November 2008, 17:46

Heard of spikes?

Not anywhere outside of the city I haven't. And considering the country is where a lot of these chase-crashes happen I don't think they're going to get to use the spikes ever.

Patrick

6th November 2008, 18:31

Waitara is barely a town, let alone a city... they have em. So does Inglewood and Stratford, and they are samller....

New Plymouth is barely a big town.... one set in every car.

madboy

6th November 2008, 18:59

In court yesterday the guy got an $800 fine - and that was all he had done, failed to stop for the cop cars blue&red lights.

Of course the fact he didn't stop because of his level of intoxication didn't help his case.

(Did runner, bailed out of moving car and disappeared into the bush)Silly boy... if he'd had a fast bike he coulda stopped, parked it carefully, put the disc lock on, called a taxi and been down at the local whorehouse and made his selection before the cops caught up to him...

Oh well, that'll learn him.

scumdog

6th November 2008, 19:44

Silly boy... if he'd had a fast bike he coulda stopped, parked it carefully, put the disc lock on, called a taxi and been down at the local whorehouse and made his selection before the cops caught up to him...

Oh well, that'll learn him.

So he could have, but in the circumstances the outcome would have been the same - although being pissed on the motorbike he would have most likely binned and if he hadn't he would have (a) dropped the bike while 'carefully parking' it, (b)been incapable of putting the disc-lock on, (c) been too limp to be any good to the whore. (maybe he was one himself??)

candor

6th November 2008, 21:36

In a lot of cases the chased driver will carry on trying to escape in their vehicle - as long as the engine still runs and the wheels still turn they will try to flee.

Exactly my point. But in NZ an ID'ed driver can't hide for long. No state lines to cross. It may be more efficient to catch them later than risk others doing it sooner. When are they turning on the ANPR system that is put to much good use in these situations elsewhere?

Madbikeboy you think chases and the "rape subculture" are both important, but that there is deeper meaning to a culture of sleeze and rape when that same culture is supposed to police and protect.

The same deeper meaning applies to upholding road safety laws, then not practising the same standards preached.

You say, as a male (and therefore not a feminist) you can't really understand how you could make that statement, if it were your wife, your sister, your daughter, you might take it a little more seriously.

Hear my shrill high voice - I'm female, feminist but not radical. I have no sister or daughter. I fully comprehend rape (been there - still here:wari:), and road death as my mother was killed by someone on the road. I know which crime is the worst. I also base this personal judgement on the heirarchy from being a registered psych nurse... imo people are worse affected by violent deaths (inclusive of road ones) to their loved ones - in the long term.

Which is not to say that rape is not a serious matter. It is one though that gets wide recognition.... the impact on families of criminal caused death though is much less understood, as the experience is less common. If you go to the Federation of European Road victims website you will see a long range study of victims of road homicide or road gbh.

The impacts tend to be more severe than those seen after rape to more people - with long term shellshock type effects, priorities often turned upside down and as with other forms of homicide long duration sadness or suicidality and much enhanced rates of completed suicide. The issues are highly comparable - both involving loss of control, alienation and big disruptions or rewrites to the expected narrative of a life or lives of those touched. It is even worse for survivors when it is your child that is maimed/lost to violent death.

Several of the chases I think should not have occurred or been continued did kill or seriously F up young people in NZ over the last 5 years. The families I have spoken to are decent people, who are very embittered to authorities now. To have no recognition that their childs traumatic death was not kosha, and the policies and laws not set right, really adds to their burden.

It was an innocent teens death, her car hit by an also deceased pursued MCist on P travelling at 240 due to being chased that got this issue rolling. I believe 60 mins did the story some time ago. Much effort was put, by the system including PCA into concealing the constable on patrols true level of blame. For one the cops speed was lied about.

With chases up 50% in 3 years to 2000 yearly, this is something that will affect more people, and should not be sniffed at because it won't happen "to me" or "due to me".
Would you rather your stolen bike is returned on the day at risk of killing someone if that takes a chase, or rather not have cops risk it if its unsafe or plain dumb to do so, and just be happy to get insurance and maybe a better bike? Often thats what it boils down to. No way am I saying call chases off, just that somebody (overseas) does it better, for road safety. And the difference is readily tracked down - to restrictive policies. I sense many Police cringe at the word restrictive and it seems those here feel they are already restricted enough. It must be word of mouth stuff not written policy (our 2004 one is lax), as I guess that is easier to legally defend against if you break the unspoken code of do's and don'ts.

meteor

7th November 2008, 11:07

I wonder if the real issue is the deterrent effect of the wet bus ticket when the runner finally gets to court and the charge isn't negotiated, withdrawn, or discharged. If they were to lose their car/bike/rollerskates or whateva and be banged up inside (both ways) for a couple or 3 weeks mandatory then the 'risk' would be too great to run. No chases equates to no injuries to innocents and no wasted lives. Until the Judiciary (and by that I mean the judges AND their political instructions) start getting serious about deterring crime rather than treating the fail to stop as an administrative charge i.e. to effect a process, then we will continue to see 'runners' who crash, kill or maim.... Oops just fell off my soap box.

Patrick

7th November 2008, 16:22

Exactly my point. But in NZ an ID'ed driver can't hide for long. No state lines to cross. It may be more efficient to catch them later than risk others doing it sooner.

When the driver is actually known, it is all over, in that Comms will call it off. Like you correctly said, catch up later.

Mikkel

7th November 2008, 16:22

And you STILL lose your licence for 28 days while waiting for the blood result to come back.

I actually thought the results would come through immediately.

Take a hypothetical reality pill.....

If ya doing 80, why would it be talked up to 141? Why would they look at ya in the first place?

The why is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that endowing anyone with that kind of power is asking for trouble. Power corrupts - just the way things are. The problem is simply that any police officer could pull over any motorist and confiscate their license - it wouldn't be difficult to do. Sure, the police officer could, and hopefully would, get into trouble for doing so - but it would still be a real hassle of whoever got served to get out of it.

I am not saying this is happening - nor am I saying it has never happened. The issue is that it could happen at all. That is why I say hypothetically - it is something that could be reality. We'd all wish that all cops were moral and ethical people - but we know for a fact that not all of them are. So we are left to hope that the vast majority of them are moral and ethical people - and I believe this to be the case. I hope that this point is not completely wasted...

Patrick

7th November 2008, 16:27

I am not saying this is happening - nor am I saying it has never happened. The issue is that it could happen at all. That is why I say hypothetically - it is something that could be reality. We'd all wish that all cops were moral and ethical people - but we know for a fact that not all of them are. So we are left to hope that the vast majority of them are moral and ethical people - and I believe this to be the case. I hope that this point is not completely wasted...

I blame the aliens... its their fault...

In 23 years, yet to meet an "immoral" or "unethical" and those that are are found out fairly quick usually.... they just don't last.

Compared to other departments from around the world, I honestly believe we are in good hands all in all...

Mikkel

7th November 2008, 16:40

I blame the aliens... its their fault...

In 23 years, yet to meet an "immoral" or "unethical" and those that are are found out fairly quick usually.... they just don't last.

Compared to other departments from around the world, I honestly believe we are in good hands all in all...

Ah, a xenophobe then.

There was this case a while ago that actually suggested that some of them made it all the way to the top. But I am not familiar with all of the facts - and I'm not going to speculate.

And certainly I agree - the NZ police force is much better than what you'd get many other places.

But now you need to realise that the issue I am discussing here has nothing to do with the police and everything to do with how the law is put together. All I am saying that the law, as it is, leaves lots of room for non-perfect human police officers (that would be everyone of them I'd like to believe) to violate civil liberties - that we otherwise take for granted - with little or no consequence.

Again, just to make it clear - my beef is not with the police but with the law itself.

Mom

7th November 2008, 16:48

A couple of years ago I was driving back from Thames. I was planning to take a smoke stop at the BP stop at the top of the Bombays. Happily cruising along in the inside lane of the motorway about 500 metres from the offramp I noticed this car weaving in and out of traffic behind me going really fast. Thought what a dickhead!

As I am indicating to turn up the offramp this idiot undertook me on the shoulder of the motorway (between me and the armco barrier). There was smoke pouring off his car and it was making a hell of a noise, I got showered with stones, half blinded my the smoke and the biggest fright of my life! My nerves must be quite good as I did not lose control, but fair to say I had the mean adrenaline rush happening.

I followed this dick up and he parked his car and took off running. I park close by and get out of the car shaking like a leaf. Next thing the carpark is filled with cop cars, plain and marked, cops all over the place. They chased him into MacDonalds and he legged it out the back into the fields. We had Eagle, cops on the roof of the buildings, you name it! This wanker was involved in a police chase, they had been chasing him from Rangariri (sp), he had a road cone wedged under the front guard, the car was pissing fluids and steam.

Fact is these cops were chasing this dickhead through relatively heavy motorway traffic, he was obviously panicked and out of control. Eagle probably would have been a safer option. I got the fright of my life, he was sooo close to me, I hate to think about what might have happened.

Talking to a cop, giving my details as you do, he tells me this bloke is runing from driving offenses! Oh really! Well he managed to commit quite a few more during the poilce pursuit. I hate them!

Ixion

7th November 2008, 17:09

scumdog

7th November 2008, 19:01

Officer Gingacunt ?
That mythical creature....sort of like a taniwha??

scumdog

7th November 2008, 19:06

I actually thought the results would come through immediately....
Noo...the blood has to be sent away to ESR and then analysed and then the results posted back to the cop in charge of the case and he may well be on days off/leave whatever so it is not instant.

madboy

8th November 2008, 08:40

.... (c) been too limp to be any good to the whore. (maybe he was one himself??)On the contrary, that'd be the perfect job for her... money for nothing.

candor

8th November 2008, 09:47

So Madboy, if its really true what they're all saying - that there is no deterrent - what would you recommend. What do you think might have made you change your mind about failing to stop? A friendlier police service, bike love, a greater awareness / value on safety, a week in the slammer or something worse than current accumulated fines would warrant (threat of)...
I take it you are young from the handle, so am interested to know.

karla

10th November 2008, 07:10

But now you need to realise that the issue I am discussing here has nothing to do with the police and everything to do with how the law is put together. All I am saying that the law, as it is, leaves lots of room for non-perfect human police officers (that would be everyone of them I'd like to believe) to violate civil liberties - that we otherwise take for granted - with little or no consequence.

Again, just to make it clear - my beef is not with the police but with the law itself.

I agree, laws are a bandaid in an imperfect system, and people are not perfect by nature.

Would you make the laws more water-tight? What would you change, if you could change them? I tend to lean towards the philosophy that laws are only for honest people; and at the end of the day no amount of law or punishment will prevent crime. It is only the conscience of mankind that stops us from doing "wrong". Conscience is one of those illusive understandings that cannot be taught, it can only be modelled

How many of us "know" that something we are doing is "wrong", but continue to do it anyway? Me for one, as I am often weak-willed and self-centred and like immediate gratification. Yet my strongest strengths come from learning to deny that nature, and aspire to higher places. That isn't something that a law can change, or that we can instill in the Next Generation.

Sheesh, I must have been thinking too much yesterday :)