PC brigade already on the offensive at police chases

[candor]

The wonders of tv. They had the Policeman say "runners must take responsibility" then cut to me saying "that's absolutely insane - they're irrational". Anyone take the time to wonder what question I was actually answering with that? Well it wasn't a response to the Cop saying the runners are responsible. However entertaining + inflammatory the editing was at my expense, it's all good fun how tv can bend reality to create drama and conflict where none exists, exciting viewers. Now I have Ministers of religion writing to me about the PC corruption of moral values when people aren't required to take responsibility - which I NEVER said/meant, but clever editing suggested.

[Virago]

The wonders of tv. They had the Policeman say "runners must take responsibility" then cut to me saying "that's absolutely insane - they're irrational". Anyone take the time to wonder what question I was actually answering with that? Well it wasn't a response to the Cop saying the runners are responsible. However entertaining + inflammatory the editing was at my expense, it's all good fun how tv can bend reality to create drama and conflict where none exists, exciting viewers. Now I have Ministers of religion writing to me about the PC corruption of moral values when people aren't required to take responsibility - which I NEVER said/meant, but clever editing suggested.

Ah - so you're the Candor Trust front person...?

If what you say above is true, you need to lay a complaint with the Broadcasting Standards Authority - you need to nail them to the wall for that.

I'm a little puzzled as to who exactly the Candor Trust is, and why they are now the public face of the anti-police-chase movement? From what I understand, the Candor Trust started as an anti-drug-driving movement, but the focus seems to have changed to denouncing "violence" on our roads, with a primary focus on police chases?

[PrincessBandit]

The wonders of tv. They had the Policeman say "runners must take responsibility" then cut to me saying "that's absolutely insane - they're irrational". Anyone take the time to wonder what question I was actually answering with that? Well it wasn't a response to the Cop saying the runners are responsible. However entertaining + inflammatory the editing was at my expense, it's all good fun how tv can bend reality to create drama and conflict where none exists, exciting viewers. Now I have Ministers of religion writing to me about the PC corruption of moral values when people aren't required to take responsibility - which I NEVER said/meant, but clever editing suggested.

My apologies then if the item was the result of twisted editing. However I do get fed up with a general inference that people who do runners bear little or no responsibility for the mayhem they cause. Cops are damned if they do and damned it they don't. Personal responsibility must be instilled and stop blaming every tom dick and harry for offenders actions.

[candor]

My apologies then if the item was the result of twisted editing. However I do get fed up with a general inference that people who do runners bear little or no responsibility for the mayhem they cause. Cops are damned if they do and damned it they don't. Personal responsibility must be instilled and stop blaming every tom dick and harry for offenders actions.

Twisted by editing and oversimplification to the point my heart sped up. I've had 30 abusive e-mls! It goes with the turf though. In essence the report represented our view that chases need to ease up, and it's got debate going so is a success that way imo. But I'm not into complaining unless an item is vindictively false because media enemies aren't desirable, plus I think they just oversimplified to an extreme as canm happen with tv media, and tried to create drama.

Why is Candor Trust focussed on chases - actualy its not our main activity, just the one media picks up on most. Because our Trust deed says we're active on promoting measures to reduce substance impaired driving trauma. The research is clear that pursuits when policy makes them regular occurrances increase it.

About one in 300 pursuits here end in death after a suspect impaired drivers was pursued (& the real concern is that half the time it's not the fleeing driver themself killed).

Global research shows the chance of an impaired driving trip ending in death when there is no pursuit occurring is something like 500x lower, just from memory. HIGH SPEED chasing of impaired drivers is irrational on the math (like pouring petrol on the fire) with predictably bad human consequences so that explains our interest in these events, hopefully.

My own Mother was killed by a repeat drink and drug driver. She had a chance at life though as his speed was only 90Kph when he crossed the centreline - but had he been pursued at the time he erred the physics clearly says she'd have been;
1) more likely to have been hit full-stop as pursued drivers are MUCH more reckless
2) gone instantly (no show) due to a catastrophic speed impact - which is perhaps more humane... but not so good for toll stats!

The chance of any drunk or drugged trip leading to tragedy though much higher than for a non impaird driver is low on absolute probabilities (you could drive drunk or drugged for years before crashing seriously based on crash risk odds). Pursuits when high speed however are inherently off the scale in risks. Science says so and all the traffic safety experts, and as a Trust we have to go with the complex boring evidence - whether thats popular or not! No way we're trying to ban pursuits - just reduce the need, improve delivery etc.

Getting stuck on who to blame doesn't bring back or protect innocent lives, and Govt spinners are trying to create a roadblock to further analysis of solutions by saying well it's not OUR fault so WE needn't try and seriously find ways to cut harm.

Quite different to the more adult approach taken overseas where the State does seek to do what it can and is in its power to defuse the danger - regardless who "started it".
A deflecting & don't care attitude to road safety from atop generally is why we fail.
IMO Police are dealt a bad hand - they are in a kind of road safety house of policy horror, with a lack of supportive laws and initiatives and no critical reflection and evaluation whenever new policies are tried or ones become outdated.

[MSTRS:Me]

... if the child wishes to proceed to challenge your love further, the government (State) departments will step in and support the Child!

...

And don't an awful lot of the youth of today know it

They did 20 year ago too...
'Independent Youth Benefit' my arse. And then DSW as they were then wanted 'maintenance'. Ha!! Good luck with that, said we. The teen in question could live at home and be supported if they followed the rules, but if not then damned if we were gonna be raped so they could have that ridiculously named benefit.
We weren't about to let the child's rights impinge on our's, the parents.
Not sure we'd get away with that these days tho.

[mashman]

They did 20 year ago too...
'Independent Youth Benefit' my arse. And then DSW as they were then wanted 'maintenance'. Ha!! Good luck with that, said we. The teen in question could live at home and be supported if they followed the rules, but if not then damned if we were gonna be raped so they could have that ridiculously named benefit.
We weren't about to let the child's rights impinge on our's, the parents.
Not sure we'd get away with that these days tho.

Yeah, shame the PC brigade have a sympathetic legal system... i mean, you have to be "legally" in need to get said benefits don't ya. Which means the rest of us have no choice/say in the matter because it has already been resolved. Trying the rehabilitation path, which i'd like to see (they aren't completely unreasonable), costs too much money. Much cheaper to just pay the kid. Weeeee're doooooooomed...

[Virago]

...Why is Candor Trust focussed on chases - actualy its not our main activity, just the one media picks up on most. Because our Trust deed says we're active on promoting measures to reduce substance impaired driving trauma. The research is clear that pursuits when policy makes them regular occurrances increase it...

Thanks for explaining the Candor Trust's position.

Can you please point us in the direction of clear and unbiased research statistics that support such claims?

The problem is that others claim that a blanket policy of abandoning high-speed pursuits actually encourages fleeing culprits to drive dangerously. So who is right?

Being wise in hindsight is very easy - groups like Candor gain little credibility by triumphantly saying "I told you so" after each pursuit death.

The reality is that deaths will always result from people fleeing police. The only way to stop that is for the police to refrain from traffic stops altogether - "just in case...".

[FJRider]

More police roadblocks in place ... maybe ... ???

[JimO]

Twisted by editing and oversimplification to the point my heart sped up. I've had 30 abusive e-mls! It goes with the turf though. In essence the report represented our view that chases need to ease up, and it's got debate going so is a success that way imo. But I'm not into complaining unless an item is vindictively false because media enemies aren't desirable, plus I think they just oversimplified to an extreme as canm happen with tv media, and tried to create drama.

Why is Candor Trust focussed on chases - actualy its not our main activity, just the one media picks up on most. Because our Trust deed says we're active on promoting measures to reduce substance impaired driving trauma. The research is clear that pursuits when policy makes them regular occurrances increase it.

About one in 300 pursuits here end in death after a suspect impaired drivers was pursued (& the real concern is that half the time it's not the fleeing driver themself killed).

Global research shows the chance of an impaired driving trip ending in death when there is no pursuit occurring is something like 500x lower, just from memory. HIGH SPEED chasing of impaired drivers is irrational on the math (like pouring petrol on the fire) with predictably bad human consequences so that explains our interest in these events, hopefully.

My own Mother was killed by a repeat drink and drug driver. She had a chance at life though as his speed was only 90Kph when he crossed the centreline - but had he been pursued at the time he erred the physics clearly says she'd have been;
1) more likely to have been hit full-stop as pursued drivers are MUCH more reckless
2) gone instantly (no show) due to a catastrophic speed impact - which is perhaps more humane... but not so good for toll stats!

The chance of any drunk or drugged trip leading to tragedy though much higher than for a non impaird driver is low on absolute probabilities (you could drive drunk or drugged for years before crashing seriously based on crash risk odds). Pursuits when high speed however are inherently off the scale in risks. Science says so and all the traffic safety experts, and as a Trust we have to go with the complex boring evidence - whether thats popular or not! No way we're trying to ban pursuits - just reduce the need, improve delivery etc.

Getting stuck on who to blame doesn't bring back or protect innocent lives, and Govt spinners are trying to create a roadblock to further analysis of solutions by saying well it's not OUR fault so WE needn't try and seriously find ways to cut harm.

Quite different to the more adult approach taken overseas where the State does seek to do what it can and is in its power to defuse the danger - regardless who "started it".
A deflecting & don't care attitude to road safety from atop generally is why we fail.
IMO Police are dealt a bad hand - they are in a kind of road safety house of policy horror, with a lack of supportive laws and initiatives and no critical reflection and evaluation whenever new policies are tried or ones become outdated.

why dont you stand up and say that stealing cars and running from the police are unacceptable and that the people who indulge in these behaviors need to accept the responsibility of their actions instead of blaming the police for doing their job

[PrincessBandit]

The reality is that deaths will always result from people fleeing police. The only way to stop that is for the police to refrain from traffic stops altogether - "just in case...".

I think that might be the goal/intent...

[slowpoke]

Twisted by editing and oversimplification to the point my heart sped up. I've had 30 abusive e-mls! It goes with the turf though. In essence the report represented our view that chases need to ease up, and it's got debate going so is a success that way imo. But I'm not into complaining unless an item is vindictively false because media enemies aren't desirable, plus I think they just oversimplified to an extreme as canm happen with tv media, and tried to create drama.

Why is Candor Trust focussed on chases - actualy its not our main activity, just the one media picks up on most. Because our Trust deed says we're active on promoting measures to reduce substance impaired driving trauma. The research is clear that pursuits when policy makes them regular occurrances increase it.

About one in 300 pursuits here end in death after a suspect impaired drivers was pursued (& the real concern is that half the time it's not the fleeing driver themself killed).

Global research shows the chance of an impaired driving trip ending in death when there is no pursuit occurring is something like 500x lower, just from memory. HIGH SPEED chasing of impaired drivers is irrational on the math (like pouring petrol on the fire) with predictably bad human consequences so that explains our interest in these events, hopefully.

My own Mother was killed by a repeat drink and drug driver. She had a chance at life though as his speed was only 90Kph when he crossed the centreline - but had he been pursued at the time he erred the physics clearly says she'd have been;
1) more likely to have been hit full-stop as pursued drivers are MUCH more reckless
2) gone instantly (no show) due to a catastrophic speed impact - which is perhaps more humane... but not so good for toll stats!

The chance of any drunk or drugged trip leading to tragedy though much higher than for a non impaird driver is low on absolute probabilities (you could drive drunk or drugged for years before crashing seriously based on crash risk odds). Pursuits when high speed however are inherently off the scale in risks. Science says so and all the traffic safety experts, and as a Trust we have to go with the complex boring evidence - whether thats popular or not! No way we're trying to ban pursuits - just reduce the need, improve delivery etc.

Getting stuck on who to blame doesn't bring back or protect innocent lives, and Govt spinners are trying to create a roadblock to further analysis of solutions by saying well it's not OUR fault so WE needn't try and seriously find ways to cut harm.

Quite different to the more adult approach taken overseas where the State does seek to do what it can and is in its power to defuse the danger - regardless who "started it".
A deflecting & don't care attitude to road safety from atop generally is why we fail.
IMO Police are dealt a bad hand - they are in a kind of road safety house of policy horror, with a lack of supportive laws and initiatives and no critical reflection and evaluation whenever new policies are tried or ones become outdated.

Thanks for the informative and reasoned response. I think a lot of folks struggle with the innate response that the runner must be punished. But that old saying "better 10 criminals go free than an innocent man be put to death" (excuse paraphrase) regarding capital punishment could equally apply to this issue.

I dunno, I freely admit I don't know the facts here in NZ let alone in places around the world with a different policy and I'll keep an open mind about it. I read an interesting article regarding the motivation behind the kids who do this sort of thing and the sheer fact that they do get chased is a large part of why they do it.

By and large we make our decisions based on a Newspaper headline, a 30sec news clip or which ever knee has jerked first. The government agencies on the other hand have to justify their decisions, hence it's important we get involved in politics and elect worthy representatives to drive those departments. Unfortunately we spend more time reading the sports/gossip pages than we do matters that actually affect our lives and apply the same headline/30sec/knee jerk decision making process come election time and wonder why we end up with a bunch of crooks, charismatic goobers and populist posturers in power.

[98tls]

the cause of this problem goes further than young crims stealing cars, it starts with the paying money to people to have children, usually the people who can least handle the responsibility of rasing ONE child end up with many children. These people dont give a shit what the kids get up to, its a self perpetuating formula the kids make more kids for the money. I adopted a pup from the spca before xmas they came and checked my property to make sure i had suitable accommodation, they checked with the local council to make sure i hadnt been in trouble with them with other dogs, i can have as many kids as i want . The problem is the same as the child abuse problem its over represented with maori and i feel its time the maori leaders stood up and took ownership of the havoc being caused by their young people, pour the treaty money into education for their young. Im sick of hearing that the education system is failing maori. Its not normal behavior for a 15 year old to steal cars and its not normal to run from the cops. Personally i couldnt care less if all the car theifs killed themselves as long as no innocent person is injured

About it,"Working for famlies" and the anti smacking bullshit.All in all surely nothing but an attempt to garnish votes from bludgers and tree huggers.Well done,not only are we going to end up with a country full of people with no respect for anything but the country will be well n truly broke.When the fuck will the people running this country wake up,actually when will the people living in it wake up.

[phill-k]

Twisted by editing and oversimplification to the point my heart sped up. I've had 30 abusive e-mls! It goes with the turf though. In essence the report represented our view that chases need to ease up, and it's got debate going so is a success that way imo. But I'm not into complaining unless an item is vindictively false because media enemies aren't desirable, plus I think they just oversimplified to an extreme as canm happen with tv media, and tried to create drama.

Why is Candor Trust focussed on chases - actualy its not our main activity, just the one media picks up on most. Because our Trust deed says we're active on promoting measures to reduce substance impaired driving trauma. The research is clear that pursuits when policy makes them regular occurrances increase it.

About one in 300 pursuits here end in death after a suspect impaired drivers was pursued (& the real concern is that half the time it's not the fleeing driver themself killed).

Global research shows the chance of an impaired driving trip ending in death when there is no pursuit occurring is something like 500x lower, just from memory. HIGH SPEED chasing of impaired drivers is irrational on the math (like pouring petrol on the fire) with predictably bad human consequences so that explains our interest in these events, hopefully.

My own Mother was killed by a repeat drink and drug driver. She had a chance at life though as his speed was only 90Kph when he crossed the centreline - but had he been pursued at the time he erred the physics clearly says she'd have been;
1) more likely to have been hit full-stop as pursued drivers are MUCH more reckless
2) gone instantly (no show) due to a catastrophic speed impact - which is perhaps more humane... but not so good for toll stats!

The chance of any drunk or drugged trip leading to tragedy though much higher than for a non impaird driver is low on absolute probabilities (you could drive drunk or drugged for years before crashing seriously based on crash risk odds). Pursuits when high speed however are inherently off the scale in risks. Science says so and all the traffic safety experts, and as a Trust we have to go with the complex boring evidence - whether thats popular or not! No way we're trying to ban pursuits - just reduce the need, improve delivery etc.

Getting stuck on who to blame doesn't bring back or protect innocent lives, and Govt spinners are trying to create a roadblock to further analysis of solutions by saying well it's not OUR fault so WE needn't try and seriously find ways to cut harm.

Quite different to the more adult approach taken overseas where the State does seek to do what it can and is in its power to defuse the danger - regardless who "started it".
A deflecting & don't care attitude to road safety from atop generally is why we fail.
IMO Police are dealt a bad hand - they are in a kind of road safety house of policy horror, with a lack of supportive laws and initiatives and no critical reflection and evaluation whenever new policies are tried or ones become outdated.

Not only is your survey biased, but the crap written above shows how fucking stupid you are, why don't you just campaign for drunk driving to be legalised so long as you don't drive over 20kms an hour. The above is PC going wrong in the extreme, to try and link your mothers circumstances to being lucky through it not being a police chase is pure crap!!! - I stopped reading at that point. and i never use colour, bought to you by Hardeys Cab Sav

[slowpoke]

Edit: no point

[candor]

why dont you stand up and say that stealing cars and running from the police are unacceptable and that the people who indulge in these behaviors need to accept the responsibility of their actions instead of blaming the police for doing their job

Umm because we do say offenders need to take responsibility and do blame them but it can't stop there not for one minute (or the 100 years National would like it to)as that does not save lives, asking the Police to use best evidence backed policies is hardly blaming them - it is seeking better responses on the behalf of future inniocent victims or fugitives whose actions are not BEST managed.

Visitors - back later to address other post