Revenue collection before public safety

[_STAIN_]

Went for wee toddle down south at weekend, come across an incident where ute and trailer had rolled. It was mid way thru a moderate tight set of "S" bends. From the north it was a right hander just after cresting a rise. From south the right hander was a banked cutting. There was a large oil spill rendering south lane impassable. In my opinion a moderately dangerous situation for traffic from both directions.

Access the situation, little I can do so proceed south.

10 min. down the road Fire Engine and Ambo heading north.

15 min. Mufti car heading north.

20 min. marked stationwagon carrying large "Accident Signs" pulls me over for as I was traveling at more than 10 kph over the open road speed limit. I was in no hurray and as I explained to the Officer, I think my speed may have accidentally crept as I was thinking about the crash up the road which is in a dangerous place and the area needs traffic control. Reply is, "I already have 2 officers on the way: Speaks like a senior and is carrying the Large "Accident Signage"
Clearly he considers his quota is more important than Public Safety and further delays were he should be, by casually writing me up.

Police attitude is getting more and more distant from the public protector role of past.
We have volunteer Fireman and Ambo staff at the scene who need their back's watched at such accident scenes.

I have no issue that I was breaking the law.
There was no lesson in this misdemeanor that I deserve to loose 20% of my right to ride or drive. (Demerit Points)
The lesson is the growing lack of respect from the older generation to the community safety issues, the Police fail to uphold.
Unfortunately the small pittance I will pay for this infringement is unlikely to go toward better judgment training, for seniors.
Neither will it be used for driver education or competency to drive testing.
I am absolutely sure part of it will be used for more speed detection devices that is so far removed from the real reason for crashes it is laughable........as the Police well know.
Their drive to slowing the speed is not a cure for incompetence, way past time the correct issues were addressed.

Cheers
Bryce

[XRVrider]

Agree with the fact that maybe the police are losing sight of real crimes and targeting ways to make revenue from soft crimes such as speeding. i know speed kills, but not like heroin or or the destructive nature of "P" or alcohol violence in the and at home etc...

Just have a look at prison sentences these days and guys like Liam Reid who played the system heinously well. I work in the centre of my town and I can count on one hand the number of times a cop on the beat has walked past this year, and there's so many mid day drunks and drug deals going on right outside the door. They must be out racing around in cars if they arent on the beat.

Perhaps take a look at the UK where a speed camera has made a million quid, thats nearly 3 million NZD!!! Hmm cops aint what they were in my view, but maybe the politically correct world has made that happen.

[98tls]

Agree with the fact that maybe the police are losing sight of real crimes and targeting ways to make revenue from soft crimes such as speeding. i know speed kills, but not like heroin or or the destructive nature of "P" or alcohol violence in the and at home etc...

Just have a look at prison sentences these days and guys like Liam Reid who played the system heinously well. I work in the centre of my town and I can count on one hand the number of times a cop on the beat has walked past this year, and there's so many mid day drunks and drug deals going on right outside the door. They must be out racing around in cars if they arent on the beat.

Perhaps take a look at the UK where a speed camera has made a million quid, thats nearly 3 million NZD!!! Hmm cops aint what they were in my view, but maybe the politically correct world has made that happen. Nope there out attending the neverending 111 calls re domestic violence/timewasters etc,cops may not be what you consider they used to be but neither is the rest of the world.

[XRVrider]

They're setting up speed cameras, so no street police presence. National Govt say they're going to change things for the better... wait and see.

[awayatc]

The only signal we can send through the system would be to challenge each and every revenue collection in court....
i.e don't pay the fine, but go to court instead....that way the judges/courts/ whole system will get overburdened, and maybe things will change....

[BiK3RChiK]

Kind of reminds me of the time I was a victim of robbery but the only officer in town when I called 111 was determined to finish writing up the ticket for some speed offender until the 111 operator gave him a bollocking:wacko:

[awayatc]

Well the police can't attend to every muggery/buggery/robbery now can they?
But since it is a well established fact that all crims distance themselves from the crimescene at a great rate of knots, they stand a fair chance of getting caught on a camera, or in front of a gun. (speed gun/camera that is...)

Unless of course, the crims just linger, or take of at a leisurely pace....

[MSTRS]

In cases like this, it is obvious that this cop's priority 'system' is seriously out of step with the demands of reality.
I can't say that it is across the board tho ... DAMHIK

[SDU]

Thanks for keeping him busy for us:crazy:
Nasty spot to come across a accident-dangerous

[peasea]

The only signal we can send through the system would be to challenge each and every revenue collection in court....
i.e don't pay the fine, but go to court instead....that way the judges/courts/ whole system will get overburdened, and maybe things will change....


I do that every time, I go for the defended hearing, don't turn up etc. So you get court costs, so what? Once it's been through the system you can drip it up, you can't do that with instant fines. (To the best of my knowledge.)

It's entirely possible that the revenue gatherer that issued the ticket wasn't the only one with 'accident signs' in his vehicle but they do seem to have all day to badger people for minor infringements and no time for burg's etc.

[Mikkel]

Considering that the law-enforcement community is a "run-for-profit" coporation and that they are feeding us bullshit 24/7 and expecting us not to think for ourselves this can hardly come as a surprise can it?

[Patrick]

... 20 min. marked stationwagon carrying large "Accident Signs" pulls me over for as I was traveling at more than 10 kph over the open road speed limit. I was in no hurray and as I explained to the Officer, I think my speed may have accidentally crept as I was thinking about the crash up the road which is in a dangerous place and the area needs traffic control. Reply is, "I already have 2 officers on the way: Speaks like a senior and is carrying the Large "Accident Signage"
Clearly he considers his quota is more important than Public Safety and further delays were he should be, by casually writing me up.

20 mins at "more than 10kmph over the limit... Hmmm... 100k zone, I assume. So... "at least" 30 kilometres from the scene and he should be there too? How many did you want to be at this scene? 3 at least, apparently.

Suck it up, you sped. End of story. Stop bitching.

...
I have no issue that I was breaking the law.

Ay????????? The majority of the thread is another moan about a ticket earned.

There was no lesson in this misdemeanor that I deserve to loose 20% of my right to ride or drive. (Demerit Points)

It is not a right. It is a priviledge. Misuse it, you lose it and donate to the govt coffers at will.

The lesson is the growing lack of respect from the older generation to the community safety issues, the Police fail to uphold.

By being too busy having at least 1 extra unnecessary staff member attend an accident over 30km away, apparently....:whistle:;)

Unfortunately the small pittance I will pay for this infringement is unlikely to go toward better judgment training, for seniors.

???? Sounds like this one used his judgement and felt that two patrols were more than enough to attend the crash. Or is it that his judgement was lacking because he gave "you" a ticket, for "your" speeding?

Neither will it be used for driver education or competency to drive testing.

Both are private businesses.

I am absolutely sure part of it will be used for more speed detection devices that is so far removed from the real reason for crashes it is laughable........as the Police well know.

:zzzz: Stats show otherwise..... An increase in the vehicle fleet and population, and corresponding fall in the road toll, as an example..... Other factors, sure, ............... perhaps....., but hey.....

Their drive to slowing the speed is not a cure for incompetence, way past time the correct issues were addressed.

But it is a beginning...... and times are a changin....

Cheers
Bryce


Agree with the fact that maybe the police are losing sight of real crimes

When did this become a fact?????? I must have missed that training day. You were much closer with the "maybe"..... wrong still, but closer.....

and targeting ways to make revenue from soft crimes such as speeding.

Speeding isn't a "crime," but there are so many who are so keen to donate to the government coffers. The reduction in fines (which has begun already) makes a mockery of this "claim" of revenue gathering.

i know speed kills, but not like heroin or or the destructive nature of "P" or alcohol violence in the and at home etc...

How many heroin, P or alcohol fuelled murders are committed in NZ every year?

How many died in speed realted crashes in any year?

Betcha there were far more speed related fatal crashes, but this is acceptable.... for some unknown reason....



Just have a look at prison sentences these days and guys like Liam Reid who played the system heinously well. I work in the centre of my town and I can count on one hand the number of times a cop on the beat has walked past this year, and there's so many mid day drunks and drug deals going on right outside the door. They must be out racing around in cars if they arent on the beat.

Considering there is a community cop shop in Liardet St in the middle of town and she does not have a car and walks the beat all day, ever thought of phoning up and reporting such things? Those cameras are great at night time, even better in the day time.

Perhaps take a look at the UK where a speed camera has made a million quid, thats nearly 3 million NZD!!! Hmm cops aint what they were in my view, but maybe the politically correct world has made that happen.

Speed cameras - Yeah, but thats logical. This is NZ and a govt department you are talking about......

Cops not what they used to be - yup. PC has, and still is, doing its damage.... it's gonna get worse.....................................


Considering that the law-enforcement community is a "run-for-profit" coporation and that they are feeding us bullshit 24/7 and expecting us not to think for ourselves this can hardly come as a surprise can it?

"Run for Profit?" Is this commission based?:2thumbsup Might have to lift my productivity/quota thingy then.....

Its because so many can't think for themselves and its always someone or something elses fault.

[Jantar]

....How many died in speed realted crashes in any year?

Betcha there were far more speed related fatal crashes, but this is acceptable.... for some unknown reason....
.

I know it may seem strange, but 100% of motor vehicle fatalities in any year are speed related. If at least one vehicle wasn't travelling at some speed then the accident wouldn't have happened in the first place. The real question to be asked is "How many died in any year where at least one vehicle was exceeding the posted speed limit?

For some reason that statisitic isn't available from either the police or ACC. They both define speed related as "too fast for the conditions" even though other vehicles may be going faster without crashing.

The best source of accident causes is from the legal and insurance fraternity in USA where litigation is big and the cause of an accident must be shown for litigation to be successfull.

From: http://www.car-accident-advice.com/car-accident-causes.html


For example, a large number of car accidents every year were caused by driving drunk. As a result major pushes have been made to reduce the number of drunk drivers who are on the road. Organizations such as MADD work to reduce drunk driving, and there are also many public information ads that target it as well. These are major steps that are being taken to reduce one of the largest car accident causes.

However, regardless of whether or not the driver was drunk, car accident statistics show that many car accidents (81%) were at least partially caused by the driver talking with other passengers in the car.

The statistics also show other significant causes of car accidents are listening to or changing the radio stations (involved in 66% of all accidents) to talking on cell phones (25%).

What we can see from these car accident causes is that while being drunk is a major cause of car accidents, the most common cause of car accidents is any type of distraction. Simple distractions can be causes of car accidents that create serious life-altering injuries such as those that result in head injury claims. Note that "exceeding the speed limit" doesn't even rate a mention.

In New Zealand, I have seen data (but can't find it online) that shows that less than 5% of motor vehicle insurance claims involve vehicles exceeding the speed limit.

[Mikkel]

"Run for Profit?" Is this commission based?:2thumbsup Might have to lift my productivity/quota thingy then.....

Like most other normal employees in a run-for-profit organisation you are hired on a monthly salary with a specific job description in mind and you are very rarely, if indeed ever, encouraged to "think outside the box".

Sound about right?

This is by no means to take a dig at you personally - but how often haven't we heard the nice officer say "Yeah I know it's silly, but I don't make the rules I just enforce them."?

[Mikkel]

In New Zealand, I have seen data (but can't find it online) that shows that less than 5% of motor vehicle insurance claims involve vehicles exceeding the speed limit.

Well, the drivers have to find their way out of the carpark before they can really get up to speed. Not easy when you haven't had any instruction...

:chase:

[Laxi]

Kind of reminds me of the time I was a victim of robbery but the only officer in town when I called 111 was determined to finish writing up the ticket for some speed offender until the 111 operator gave him a bollocking:wacko:

try calling the cops because 4 guys with baseball bats are smashing crap out of the cars in your drive (mistaken identity I might add), they took 45 minutes to get here, if I hadnt set my dog on them who knows what would have happened, then they wanted to charge me with assault with a weapon:pinch:

[Patrick]

I know it may seem strange, but 100% of motor vehicle fatalities in any year are speed related. If at least one vehicle wasn't travelling at some speed then the accident wouldn't have happened in the first place. The real question to be asked is "How many died in any year where at least one vehicle was exceeding the posted speed limit?

For some reason that statisitic isn't available from either the police or ACC. They both define speed related as "too fast for the conditions" even though other vehicles may be going faster without crashing.....

Just take a look at the photos of most of these scenes.... We aren't talking of moving spped, its the exceeding speed limit. The figures do speak for themselves, from the moment they targetted the 11 to 15kmph over the speed limit, the road toll fell markedly, even though the population and vehicle numbers on the roads grew. A reduction in the overall average speed limit is a reduction in dead people on the road. I don't have a problem with that.


Like most other normal employees in a run-for-profit organisation you are hired on a monthly salary with a specific job description in mind and you are very rarely, if indeed ever, encouraged to "think outside the box".

Sound about right?

This is by no means to take a dig at you personally - but how often haven't we heard the nice officer say "Yeah I know it's silly, but I don't make the rules I just enforce them."?

Nothing is ever the same in this job. It sure as hell aint run for profit. You gotta think outside the box every time or else you won't survive. Sound about right? Nope.....

As for enforcing the rules, well, ummm... yeah... that is what we do...?

And no personal dig taken (or given)....:2thumbsup


try calling the cops because 4 guys with baseball bats are smashing crap out of the cars in your drive (mistaken identity I might add), they took 45 minutes to get here, if I hadnt set my dog on them who knows what would have happened, then they wanted to charge me with assault with a weapon:pinch:

Your dog is lucky. You were too, once they could have finished the dog off, that might have pissed em off a bit and you would be next?

But you have my condolences... makes me wonder what the hell some are thinking out there, looking at you as the bad guy. PC and common sense do not go well together.

[Indoo]

The LTNZ ie government fund the traffic police, dictating how many hours the Police have to do etc and what resources are poured into it, its a contract afaik and if the Police don't meet what is demanded they don't get the resources.

Its was also our government who dictated that the vast majority of the 900 or so new cops would be community ones, rather than frontline and responding to jobs such as 4 people at night smashing up cars. Cops on the frontline work their arses off esp when compared to certain other areas within the Police, taking the frustration out on them is a bit redundant given who is is that dictates where the resources go.

[jrandom]

Once it's been through the system you can drip it up, you can't do that with instant fines.

You can if you just wait out the initial two months without paying it, so long as you're prepared to accept an additional charge on top of the fine when it's transferred to the court system for collection.

[Jantar]

Just take a look at the photos of most of these scenes.... We aren't talking of moving spped, its the exceeding speed limit.
Not so. Its too fast for the conditions that contributed to the accident, then its the actual rate of speed change (decelleration) at the point of impact that contributes to the extant of the injuries. But what about the root cause of the accident in the first place?


The figures do speak for themselves, from the moment they targetted the 11 to 15kmph over the speed limit, the road toll fell markedly, even though the population and vehicle numbers on the roads grew. A reduction in the overall average speed limit is a reduction in dead people on the road. I don't have a problem with that.
....
From the moment that the speed limit was raised from 80kmh to 100kmh the fatality rate started to fall. It continued to fall as vehicles were made safer with crumple zones, airbags etc. It fell because fewer accidents were happening at high speed which may have been partly due to the greater amount of enforcement, or it may have been due to drivers paying more attention to the road.

Patrick, you and I are aiming for the same overall objective; fewer fatalities and serious injuries. Its just that I prefer to find the primary causes of accidents and target that area to prevent accidents from happening in the first place ,whereas the police appear to target the effects of accidents and say that its OK to have accidents, but lets keep the effects to a minimum.

When there are so many road safety initiatives happening at once it is difficult to pinpoint any single one and say what effect that particular initiative is having.

[MSTRS]

Not so. Its too fast for the conditions that contributed to the accident, then its the actual rate of speed change (decelleration) at the point of impact that contributes to the extant of the injuries. But what about the root cause of the accident in the first place?


From the moment that the speed limit was raised from 80kmh to 100kmh the fatality rate started to fall. It continued to fall as vehicles were made safer with crumple zones, airbags etc. It fell because fewer accidents were happening at high speed which may have been partly due to the greater amount of enforcement, or it may have been due to drivers paying more attention to the road.

Patrick, you and I are aiming for the same overall objective; fewer fatalities and serious injuries. Its just that I prefer to find the primary causes of accidents and target that area to prevent accidents from happening in the first place ,whereas the police appear to target the effects of accidents and say that its OK to have accidents, but lets keep the effects to a minimum.

When there are so many road safety initiatives happening at once it is difficult to pinpoint any single one and say what effect that particular initiative is having.

You make very good points. I guess without knowing the number of accidents as a percentage of the vehicle fleet, any other statistics (such as actual deaths) are slightly meaningless. I mean, there are those that say the death rate in the 80s and 90s was fairly constant, but only as a number...as a percentage of the fleet it was falling anyway. Was that because of better vehicle design or increased use of seatbelts or initial effects of the 'speed campaign' or or or ?
The only thing that we can be certain of is that the outcome of an accident is likely to be less severe if impact speed is less, regardless of any other measures.

[peasea]

You can if you just wait out the initial two months without paying it, so long as you're prepared to accept an additional charge on top of the fine when it's transferred to the court system for collection.


I didn't realise. However, which would produce the most paperwork? Surely going the whole hog with a defended hearing would win hands down wouldn't it? I love it when screeds of paper comes through the letterbox, it gives us something to light the fire with.

[peasea]

PC and common sense do not go well together.

How can you say that? You don't even know me.

[_STAIN_]

The LTNZ ie government fund the traffic police, dictating how many hours the Police have to do etc and what resources are poured into it, its a contract afaik and if the Police don't meet what is demanded they don't get the resources.

Its was also our government who dictated that the vast majority of the 900 or so new cops would be community ones, rather than frontline and responding to jobs such as 4 people at night smashing up cars. Cops on the frontline work their arses off esp when compared to certain other areas within the Police, taking the frustration out on them is a bit redundant given who is is that dictates where the resources go.

Yeah right, the government said go out and ticket 500 speedsters in North Canterbury as fast as you can or you will loose you funding, just ignore accidents and public safety over the busy Easter Weekend.
Nice to see that the community may get some resources kerbing Theft, Street Assault, Tagging, Domestic Violence and Home Invasion.

[Patrick]

The LTNZ ie government fund the traffic police, dictating how many hours the Police have to do etc and what resources are poured into it, its a contract afaik and if the Police don't meet what is demanded they don't get the resources.

Its was also our government who dictated that the vast majority of the 900 or so new cops would be community ones, rather than frontline and responding to jobs such as 4 people at night smashing up cars. Cops on the frontline work their arses off esp when compared to certain other areas within the Police, taking the frustration out on them is a bit redundant given who is is that dictates where the resources go.

These new "positions" (from existing staff????) can't be used to attend jobs - and they only work 8am til 4pm weekdays only.


Not so. Its too fast for the conditions that contributed to the accident, then its the actual rate of speed change (decelleration) at the point of impact that contributes to the extant of the injuries. But what about the root cause of the accident in the first place?

Two cars doing 100 head on is a mess. 2 cars doing 110 head on is a bigger mess. 2 cars doing 140 head on... see where this is going?

From the moment that the speed limit was raised from 80kmh to 100kmh the fatality rate started to fall. It continued to fall as vehicles were made safer with crumple zones, airbags etc. It fell because fewer accidents were happening at high speed which may have been partly due to the greater amount of enforcement, or it may have been due to drivers paying more attention to the road.

This is true. But then it raised again... so something else was tried. They brought in the 11-15kmph over the limit tagetting, and its falling again.

Patrick, you and I are aiming for the same overall objective; fewer fatalities and serious injuries. Its just that I prefer to find the primary causes of accidents and target that area to prevent accidents from happening in the first place ,whereas the police appear to target the effects of accidents and say that its OK to have accidents, but lets keep the effects to a minimum.

As I said earlier, or in another thread just recently....(???) times are a changin...... Targetting areas prone to crashes is exactly where things are heading.

When there are so many road safety initiatives happening at once it is difficult to pinpoint any single one and say what effect that particular initiative is having.

True. But having a crack at any and all of em has gotta be a good thing in the end. Time will tell.


How can you say that? You don't even know me.

PC? Is that you??????


Yeah right, the government said go out and ticket 500 speedsters in North Canterbury as fast as you can or you will loose you funding, just ignore accidents and public safety over the busy Easter Weekend.

And how meany deaths occurred in North Canturbury?

Nice to see that the community may get some resources kerbing Theft, Street Assault, Tagging, Domestic Violence and Home Invasion.

Been told they can not be used to be sent to jobs. Unsure what the community is actually getting..... One less snake perhaps?

[Jantar]

From the moment that the speed limit was raised from 80kmh to 100kmh the fatality rate started to fall. It continued to fall as vehicles were made safer with crumple zones, airbags etc. It fell because fewer accidents were happening at high speed which may have been partly due to the greater amount of enforcement, or it may have been due to drivers paying more attention to the road.

This is true. But then it raised again... so something else was tried. They brought in the 11-15kmph over the limit tagetting, and its falling again.


I only have the data up to 2007, but from the time that the speed limit was raised in 1986, there was a very slight increase in 1987 as drivers had to relearn to judge the higher speeds, then the fatality rate has dropped evry year since. Where exactly is the point that you claim it raised again?

Number of
Fatalities
Per 10,000
Vehicles

1981 3.6
1982 3.6
1983 3.4
1984 3.4
1985 3.7
1986 3.8
1987 3.9
1988 3.6
1989 3.6
1990 3.3
1991 2.9
1992 2.9
1993 2.7
1994 2.5
1995 2.5
1996 2.2
1997 2.3
1998 2.1
1999 2.0
2000 1.8
2001 1.7
2002 1.5
2003 1.6
2004 1.5
2005 1.3
2006 1.3
2007 1.3

[MSTRS]

... I guess without knowing the number of accidents as a percentage of the vehicle fleet, any other statistics (such as actual deaths) are slightly meaningless. ...


.
Number of
Fatalities
Per 10,000
Vehicles

1981 3.6 ... falling year by year ... 2007 1.3


What about being able to compare the actual number of accidents? Is that falling too? Somehow, I doubt it.

[peasea]

What about being able to compare the actual number of accidents? Is that falling too? Somehow, I doubt it.

You have to get it in perspective. Jantar has a point with the "per 10,000" thing. There will always be fatal accidents (sadly) when vehicles are operated by humans, humans make mistakes etc. So the true yardstick is "per" whatever figure of vehicles are on the road.

The 'real' road toll has actually dropped over the years (per machine on the road) and much of that is down to belts, air bags and crumple zones.

[Jantar]

What about being able to compare the actual number of accidents? Is that falling too? Somehow, I doubt it.
The data came from the Ministry of Transport 2008 report. It doesn't give the number of accidents, only injuries and fatalities.

The raw number of fatalities went from 669 in 1981 to 442 in 2007, while the number of vehicles on the road went from 1,848,600 to 3,189,100.

[MSTRS]

I understand, Jantar. As a percentage, deaths are falling, but because of increases to the fleet. The actual number of deaths remains somewhat constant (at around the high 300's?). My point is that doesn't tell us whether there is a corresponding drop in the percentage of accidents (injury/fatal/other).