Police crackdown

[rastuscat]

I repeat.

Okay, advise what I can do to change the driving behaviours that cause and aggravate crashes.

Remember that I am only one rung up from the bottom of the bureaucratic ladder, so I'm a bit limited at what I can do.

Bring it on.

[steve_t]

Occasionally we video the work we are doing, mainly for quality control.

(It's) so hard for us to admit our mistakes, even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. Our mind tells us that our perceptions are true, even when they aren't.

Donuts donuts donuts

Got the video of Owl's case?

Just because a cop said he saw something, doesn't mean he did.
As we all know, they're only human. And humans lie, sometimes even believing what they say is true.

So if perception is everything, surely we need to move to a situation of video recording everything. If the offender's perception can be wrong, surely the police officer's could be as well

[MSTRS:Me]

I repeat.

Okay, advise what I can do to change the driving behaviours that cause and aggravate crashes.

Remember that I am only one rung up from the bottom of the bureaucratic ladder, so I'm a bit limited at what I can do.

Bring it on.

You personally? Not much.

Everyone must play their part - it's a team effort, right?
Safer Communities Together, right?

Separating pigs and snakes might help...at least the great unwashed would know which one's to respect.


Oh - and stop trying to convince us that quotas don't exist. Or reduced tolerances mean less crashes. Etc. Few are fooled by the weasel words of the brass. If you want the public to buy into the messages, they have to be believeable.

[rastuscat]

If the offender's perception can be wrong, surely the police officer's could be as well

Interesting.

Most of us, certainly most folk I know, drive subconsciously. For example, get to a destination, and sometimes it's difficult to remember the number of pedestrians you drove past. Just an example, that.

Now, when a cop is sitting at a stop sign waiting for someone to drive through without stopping, he/she is sitting there focussing on specifically that. After all, it's why he/she is there. A driver who rolls through would have done so without having made a conscious decision to roll through, so is unlikely to register exactly what has happened.

Funny then, that when stopped, they suddenly have specific, focussed recall of having stopped.

I hope you see my point, that someone specifically looking for something is more likely to have recall of the fact than someone who is paying no particular attention.

Am I wrong?

[rastuscat]

Separating pigs and snakes might help...at least the great unwashed would know which one's to respect.

Why does a driver behaviour shift have to be driven by Police?

Why can't people just realise that it is actually them who could change the road toll today, this minute, by stopping doing the things that cause crashes. It wouldn't even cost anything.

It's the "it won't happen to me" syndrome. Basically, we all think that crashes are what happen to other people, so why should we change our own driving behaviour.

We each think we are awesome drivers, who don't need to change.

Donuts, yum.

[MSTRS:Me]

You answered yourself in post 184...but you didn't go far enough.

Most of us, certainly most folk I know, drive subconsciously. For example, get to a destination, and sometimes it's difficult to remember the number of pedestrians you drove past. Just an example, that.

If that had read "Most of us, certainly most folk I know, drive subconsciously. For example, get to a destination, and sometimes it's difficult to remember which road/s you took to get there. Just an example, that." - that would have been closer to the truth.

My point is that people (drivers) don't think, don't pay attention. My posts are deliberately inflammatory in an effort to make people think. Who knows...maybe there's a great mind/idea just waiting for a catalyst to bring it to the fore.

Why does a driver behaviour shift have to be driven by Police?

Why not? It's "you lot" that are trying to do just that by using the blunt instrument of enforcement.
It is my contention that the method/s are part of the problem.

[miloking]

Why does a driver behaviour shift have to be driven by Police?

Why can't people just realise that it is actually them who could change the road toll today, this minute, by stopping doing the things that cause crashes. It wouldn't even cost anything.

It's the "it won't happen to me" syndrome. Basically, we all think that crashes are what happen to other people, so why should we change our own driving behaviour.

We each think we are awesome drivers, who don't need to change.

Donuts, yum.

Exactly! I dont need to change!....its YOU asking us to change. So if you (police) dont want to "drive" the change then dont!

BTW road toll doesnt bother me...realy it doesnt, and i doubt apart from politicians trying to make themselves look better and win votes that many normal human beings actualy care about road toll either....so why the drama?

Why arent you stoping teenage kids smoking? or fat people eating Macas? ...there are many more lives to save right there.

[Bald Eagle]

Exactly! I dont need to change!....its YOU asking us to change. So if you (police) dont want to "drive" the change then dont!

BTW road toll doesnt bother me...realy it doesnt, and i doubt apart from politicians trying to make themselves look better and win votes that many normal human beings actualy care about road toll either....so why the drama?

The road toll is a nice media freindly distraction for tptb. We annualy kill or dispose of more people from a whole range of other factors that never get this consistent level of media coverage ( suicides / drugs / etc etc ).

[mashman]

Why does a driver behaviour shift have to be driven by Police?

It doesn't and shouldn't be. You said yourself you have to do as you're directed, tis the job. That's someone's else lazy attempt at bringing sanity to the roads

Why can't people just realise that it is actually them who could change the road toll today, this minute, by stopping doing the things that cause crashes. It wouldn't even cost anything.

It's the "it won't happen to me" syndrome. Basically, we all think that crashes are what happen to other people, so why should we change our own driving behaviour.

We each think we are awesome drivers, who don't need to change.

Because they have nothing invested in the outcome, other than to stay alive... and as they are still alive, their driving must be fine... there's nothing wrong with that logic, as we all know, or most do, it only takes that 1 lapse of concentration and yer in the poo, the other 649,000 time you've made the exact same journey has turned out fine, same for drink drivers, drugged drivers, speeders, slowers etc... what could go wrong...

Those things are called accidents . The "fuckwits" pushing where they shouldn't have other things to learn, the importance of tyres, suspension setup, brakes, road conditions etc... and that takes education. The hard bit is finding a single approach that fits all...

[steve_t]

I hope you see my point, that someone specifically looking for something is more likely to have recall of the fact than someone who is paying no particular attention.

Am I wrong?

Fair call. I'd still think getting video cameras everywhere would be a good idea esp now that 1080p cameras are so cheap. I'd certainly feel bummed out if I was arguing the point and was then shown video footage of the infraction. But yeah, the point about specifically looking for something vs autopilot and recall is fair enuf

[Owl]

It's what makes it so hard for us to admit our mistakes, even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.

Joe public or the police?

While I've never lost my licence, I've had more than my share of infringement notices. Been let off a fair few too when I should've recieved one, so I'll say I'm up on the deal and not going to whine. I only dispute the one where the cop got it wrong............not the other xxx where they got it right!

Got the video of Owl's case?

Just because a cop said he saw something, doesn't mean he did.
As we all know, they're only human. And humans lie, sometimes even believing what they say is true.

It was at a checkpoint and the officer that waved me in just got it wrong. Two cops, lot of cars, shit happens and the one issuing tickets never saw anything. At least the vehicle that stopped in front of me (I'm sure about that too) got to go on his way.

[bogan]

I repeat.

Okay, advise what I can do to change the driving behaviours that cause and aggravate crashes.

Remember that I am only one rung up from the bottom of the bureaucratic ladder, so I'm a bit limited at what I can do.

Bring it on.

I'd like to offer an alternate theory, the number of tickets wirtten out will lower the number of offenses that ticket was written for, to a point. Public perception of how effective this law is at preventing accidents will govern what this point is. So while studies may show that writing more tickets reduces accident rates, writing too many may have no effect on road safety, and writing them for bullshit laws like headlights on bikes, and bike regos, is unlikely to have any effect on road safety. And if more tickets on good laws reduce the offenses, it'll follow that the amount of tickets will reduce too.

So abandon the quotas bollocks, focus on effective laws which actually make the roads safer, and show discrimination in applying those law. ie passing on double yellows should be all good if you have vision and make it with 100m of clear road etc...

[Patrick]

Just a thought.

Quota or not, if you wear your seatbelt, you won't get a seatbelt ticket.

If you actually stop at a stop sign, you won't get a stop sign ticket.

Notice the correlation?

No offence = no ticket.

Spooky.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo.... You're lying.................. it can't be that simple..............

[Conquiztador]

Some interesting concepts and thinking here. I include two here:

My point is that people (drivers) don't think, don't pay attention. My posts are deliberately inflammatory in an effort to make people think. Who knows...maybe there's a great mind/idea just waiting for a catalyst to bring it to the fore.
.

I have meetings monthly all over the country. I could fly but find it boring and mind numbing. I could drive but I end up spinning things in my head. So I ride because I like riding, because it helps me stay alert and in shape (there is heaps of research that tells us that bike riders are in better shape physically and mentally). I like that. And I also ride as I like my mind to stay sharp. Riding a bike does that my mind has no time to wander, it is all the time focused on the riding, watching the traffic, trying to figure out what that cars next move will be, checking the road for potholes, dirt, diesel. Listening to the motor and noticing a slight change in the sound. Feeling the road through the tyres. And waving! I therefore come to the conclusion that bikers are more alert than cagers on the road!

I'd like to offer an alternate theory, the number of tickets wirtten out will lower the number of offenses that ticket was written for, to a point. Public perception of how effective this law is at preventing accidents will govern what this point is. So while studies may show that writing more tickets reduces accident rates, writing too many may have no effect on road safety, and writing them for bullshit laws like headlights on bikes, and bike regos, is unlikely to have any effect on road safety. And if more tickets on good laws reduce the offenses, it'll follow that the amount of tickets will reduce too.

I like this: Have a quota, write out tickets and that type of offence will reduce therefore making it harder to reach the quota. So then the outcome is that the tickets are written for bullshit reasons just to reach quota.

The "keep on writing tickets and they will learn" approach is not really working (and I don't care what anyone say). It is sort of back to front. Nowhere else in our society is punishment instead of rewards considered the way to get the desired outcome.

And I know you are all gonna laugh at me here now, but I was wondering what results we could get if instead of punishing the ones who break the law we would reward the ones who don't break the law?

Here: A guy is stopped by the police and the constable comes up to his window and says: "Sir, I was following you for 10 Km's and you always indicated at least 3 seconds before you turned, you never went over the speed limit, you slowed down to 40K when passing that school, and all the time you kept the distance to the car in front of you. That will get you a ticket: Here, your free ticket to the All Blacks v Englad in two weeks."

Sorry, I must be hallucinating....

[bogan]

Here: A guy is stopped by the police and the constable comes up to his window and says: "Sir, I was following you for 10 Km's and you always indicated at least 3 seconds before you turned, you never went over the speed limit, you slowed down to 40K when passing that school, and all the time you kept the distance to the car in front of you. That will get you a ticket: Here, your free ticket to the All Blacks v Englad in two weeks."

Sorry, I must be hallucinating....

that's already happening, but instead of an all blacks match you get a free safety flyer and lecture as well as a comprehensive safety... gah, fuck it, nobody in their right mind would believe that crap

also with the quotas, if they set it for a specific type, like unsafe passing. Hand out a few deserved tickets in first week, people learn, then to fill their quota the second week they gotta write tickets that aren't so deserved, are the public gonna respect that law more the first week or the second? And are they gonna be more likely to pay attention to that law at the start of the second week or the third?

so there you go rastucat, your thoughts?