All charges dropped

[MSTRS:Me]

... it doesn't really matter a squat to me if it is through speed reduction or whatever else. ....

Right there is the problem. Stats say that speed is a very minor factor in most crashes. Therefore, targeting speed as the first line of defence is not the answer. Yet that is precisely what is, and has been, happening.
Would you keep weather-proofing your windows if your roof was leaking?

[rastuscat]

Right there is the problem. Stats say that speed is a very minor factor in most crashes. Therefore, targeting speed as the first line of defence is not the answer.

Yes, and the stats are gathered from traffic crash reports, which poorly record a small percentage of actual crashes.

The problem with your argument is that it is based on the only set of stats we have, traffic crash reports attended by police. Thing is, people (the gubbermint too) take them as gospel, when they are approximate at best. They are okay for measuring trends, but take it from someone who has been filling them out for years, they are a poor stat gathering tool at best.

Ho hum.

[rastuscat]

Would you keep weather-proofing your windows if your roof was leaking?

No. I'd move out of Christchurch, as every time you fix your roof the bloody thing gets knocked by the next aftershock.

[MSTRS:Me]

Yes, and the stats are gathered from traffic crash reports, which poorly record a small percentage of actual crashes.

The problem with your argument is that it is based on the only set of stats we have, traffic crash reports attended by police. Thing is, people (the gubbermint too) take them as gospel, when they are approximate at best. They are okay for measuring trends, but take it from someone who has been filling them out for years, they are a poor stat gathering tool at best.

Ho hum.

In which case, the problem with your argument is you can't prove speed is a factor that needs to be targeted.
Fuck me, we're surrounded by Govt, and their agencies, cracking down on the country via the use of flawed stats.
Fucking banana republic politics, that is.

[Jack Miller]

Yes, I could spend hours doing analysis of the scene, vehicles and witnesses, and prove they were doing more, but the donut shop would be closed by the time i was finished, and we can't have that.

So once again you are telling me you can't be bothered doing your job.

Looking for some advice here Jacko. ....
So, let me have a fast, efficient, safe way of enforcing it, and I'll be all over it like a rash. As soon as the earthquakes stop, and I go back to work.

Photograph the impeder and cars following (be sure to get the Regos.) Write to the owners of the following cars, explain the impeding rule to them and invite them to be witnesses in charges against the impeder. Send a ticket to the impeder mentioning that you have witnesses in case they decide to go to court. Like a speeding fine, most people will simply pay it and the lesson will begin to become known.

But seriously, why are you asking me? I haven't chosen a law enforcement career. If you can't work out how to enforce it then you shouldn't be an enforcer. If you don't know how to do your job then get another job you can do and stop wasting my taxes.

Yes, it needs to happen more,

Well that's a start - you've admitted there is a problem

but not to the total exclusion of prosecuting the faster drivers too.

I didn't say "to the total exclusion" I just asked you to be balanced not prejudiced in your enforcement. If you are going to continue to pull over and ticket everyone you see speeding then, if you want to reflect the balance that is written into the law, you have to pull over and ticket everyone you see impeding. Although I think a bit of leeway with both would be better but I leave that up to you. Just be balanced not prejudiced.

[Max Preload]

however, upon the introduction of the Higway Patrol in the Waikato in 2000, instead of attending multiple deaths every week, and ambulance and fire being called out daily for serious, mostly speed related crashes, the amount of emergency work required by the 3 ERTs dropped dramatically. in the early days of HP, and prior to it, from a daily capture rate of 5 to 10 people over 160km/h, the capture rate not only dropped dramatically, it became unusual to get such high speeds, and captures in the 140-150k range became the norm instead.

Time it was disbanded as it's clearly having the complete opposite effect.
http://www.3news.co.nz/Waikato-road-toll-double-anywhere-in-NZ/tabid/423/articleID/213245/Default.aspx

[FJRider]

Caught? doing what? Nothing illegal, the charges were dropped.

Charges being dropped does not mean "Nothing illegal" took place ... just means some piss-ant bleater is not worth chasing through the courts ... taking officers off the road ... for a measly few hundred $$$ in fines ...

The speed limits are law ... "tolerances" are not ... keep pushing the issue and "tolerances" will vanish ... and the speed limit will be FINAL ... end of story ...

Like it or not ... the 4 km/hr "tolerance" has been accepted ... EXPECT a reduction in the "Tolerance" ... soon ... NO act of Parliament is required for this to happen ... JUST A CHANGE OF POLICY ...

[davereid]

Yes, and the stats are gathered from traffic crash reports, which poorly record a small percentage of actual crashes.

The problem with your argument is that it is based on the only set of stats we have, traffic crash reports attended by police. Thing is, people (the gubbermint too) take them as gospel, when they are approximate at best. They are okay for measuring trends, but take it from someone who has been filling them out for years, they are a poor stat gathering tool at best.

Ho hum.

The stats on danger per unit speed, are not really relevant.

"Safer roads" is the governments new policy.

It basically accepts that some people will drive safely at 160, and some are a liability at 30.

But what it says is, that if we all drove at 20, even if we did fuck up, we would mostly survive.

So, speed limit enforcement now, is not about "safety". Its about "survivability".

And the laws of physics are clear. The faster you go, the bigger the mess. Even if you didnt cause it.

[FJRider]

The stats on danger per unit speed, are not really relevant.

"Safer roads" is the governments new policy.

It basically accepts that some people will drive safely at 160, and some are a liability at 30.

But what it says is, that if we all drove at 20, even if we did fuck up, we would mostly survive.

So, speed limit enforcement now, is not about "safety". Its about "survivability".

And the laws of physics are clear. The faster you go, the bigger the mess. Even if you didnt cause it.

The "policy'" is geared to the ability of the lowest common denominator ... the biggest idiot one could expect to find on the road ... and they are found in an increasing regularity ...

Find a (legal) way of keeping the idiots off the road and things may change ... everybody OBEYING the current laws ... may be proof those idiots no longer exist ...

Personally ... I see no change ... soon ...

[FJRider]

Right there is the problem. Stats say that speed is a very minor factor in most crashes. Therefore, targeting speed as the first line of defence is not the answer. Yet that is precisely what is, and has been, happening.
Would you keep weather-proofing your windows if your roof was leaking?

Funny how ... if you find water on the floor, you look at the roof ... you see the window open ... but hey ... it MUST be the roof ... eh ...

perhaps ... if we do close the windows ... and go from there ... ???

[rastuscat]

So once again you are telling me you can't be bothered doing your job.

Send a ticket to the impeder mentioning that you have witnesses in case they decide to go to court.

Well that's a start - you've admitted there is a problem

Yes, there is a problem. In fact, lots of problems.

Thing is, it's rarely as easy as you seem to think. We work in the real world, where the Bill of Rights Act means more than the Victims of Offences Act. We have to do things per the law, lest we start another poor me thread of KB.

Oddly, I agree with a lot of your sentiments, but have spent over two decades coming to terms with the realities of how we work in the environment we do. Nothing we do is ideal, and reels from compromise caused by history and reality.

Walk a mile in my shoes. We can't spend hours investigating every crash we attend, as we'd be telling even more people we don't have a car to attend their job. Enjoy the luxury of your armchair, it's the most comfortable place for a critic.

PM me, come for a ride, maybe we can find some more stuff to agree on. I'll provide the donuts.

Basically we just won't agree on a lot of stuff, but that's okay.

[Mom]

Very good reading.No doubt the popo will claim this long weekends 4kph over limit a huge success, even though the crap weather will keep a lot of people at home.

That, and the fact the the Metservice TOLD everyone the weather was going to be crap, so they never left home in the first place...

[Scuba_Steve]

So, speed limit enforcement now, is not about "safety". Its about "survivability".

And the laws of physics are clear. The faster you go, the bigger the mess. Even if you didnt cause it.

yea I'm gonna have to repeat

Ohh you must not have got the memo... that propaganda got pulled for being factually inaccurate

[Ocean1]

So, speed limit enforcement now, is not about "safety". Its about "survivability".

How?

Where’s the target? I’ve never at any time heard anyone say “x fatalities per y kilometres is OK, that’s what we’ll go for.” Modern safety systems don’t work that way, do they? You’ll never hear anyone responsible for public safety say anything other than “Zero accidents is the target”. It’s bullshit, of course. If you interpolate the speed at which zero fatalities would occur you’ll get... 0kph. The natural course of any “zero tolerance” speed and enforcement policy set is pretty obviously untenable and I reckon we’re already way too far down that path.

I found the numbers recently, the number of kilometres you get to travel before you die, on average. I found it acceptable. You may not, I duno. But if, instead of blindly following a flawed ideology they did actually acquire the balls to stipulate an acceptable fatality rate on our behalf would we accept it? Should we allow them that much control over our lives?

And why?

The argument that what most see as unreasonable limits on driving / riding behaviour was driven by revenue considerations was largely torpedoed by the reduction of fines and increased brownie points. That’s all right, then, the real reason must be that it’s in our own best interest. But...

Given that, (generally) government has no right to dictate any individual’s behaviour unless it’s demonstrably dangerous then the only visible justification for the obsessive focus on speed is the desire to reduce ACC costs. Ethically I don't buy it, I didn't agree to transform myself into a meek and obsessively careful wee pixie when ACC was introduced and the rates set. And I don't see that how I choose to live my life is something anybody else should get involved in now.

However, whether I agree with it or not it seems to me that these somewhat OTT rules and enforcement strategies are in fact driven by ACC related costs. I know they've got the legal authority to generate enforcement policy at variance with the wishes of the majority. It's done all the time. But I tend to feel that not only do the authorities have no ethical right to persecute drivers / riders for behaviour that the majority obviously consider OK but that they’re arguably wasting resources that same majority would prefer focused elsewhere.

In such cases it shouldn’t surprise authorities when the general public treat the law with distain. Derision, even.

Fuckem.

[scumdog]

[QUOTE=Jack Miller;1130087392

But seriously, why are you asking me? I haven't chosen a law enforcement career. If you can't work out how to enforce it then you shouldn't be an enforcer. If you don't know how to do your job then get another job you can do and stop wasting my taxes.

.[/QUOTE]

Why haven't you?
- you certainly seem to know how and which the laws SHOULD be enforced..