Stupid Stupid Demerits System

[bogan]

I think the problem remains one of judgement responsibility, with speed and booze that all gets lumped upon the tech. How can anything else be policed with the same efficacy?

Red lights yes (except for push bikes).

Seat belts no. They aren't endangering anyone else, they're just proving Darwin was right.

I agree with this, but perhaps with the caveat that if you are transporting children without belts demerits should still apply.

[R650R]

Yes the demerit system like many a govt policy has holes you could drive a truck through.
But it does deter me from speeding and other things, paying a ticket us no drama but having demerits hanging over you when you need licence for job is not good.

On truck side you can get 35 Demerits for failing to produce a logbook which is a good thing as that's what the smart bent drivers would do, fail to produce s record instead of be done for fraud via falsifying a logbook.
In the same vein you can get 10 demerits for an omission, eg not recording a rego number, name, date, time or location etc which was the other easy cheat.
The problem is human nature and accidental loss means you can still commit the above offences with zero impact on safety but be penalised.

From another angle picture the young teen boy racer in a modified death trap whose on his demerits limit. He's speeding him and a cop both see each other, he knows it's going to be bye bye licence, hello police pursuit.... Nothing to lose....

Expecting a give department to accept outside advice and make change for better, that's the best joke I've heard all week.

Remember some years ago, just before Herr Ckark got voted out, they were going to have 75 demerits and 5o Demerits for faint to stop at stop sign and failing to give way. It was slated to come in the next year but Nats got cited in and it never happened.

[pritch]

I agree with this, but perhaps with the caveat that if you are transporting children without belts demerits should still apply.

Not really, that could be classed as "child neglect" and there's whole Department of the Government dedicated to dealing with that very thing.

[bogan]

Not really, that could be classed as "child neglect" and there's whole Department of the Government dedicated to dealing with that very thing.

Could be, but exactly zero chance there'd be any action taken based on lack of seat belts alone. Spot fine/demerits, job done, no point fucking around.

[Moi]

... A remarkable trend emerged early in that field. The camera only take photos of the cars equalling or exceeding the trigger speed. The trigger speed was set at the 85th percentile, being the speed at which 85% of the cars travelling on that road were travelling less than. That way only those who were in the top 15% would get snapped.

In reality about 1 to 2 % got snapped on most deployments, as people driving with their eyes open would see it, and not get snapped.

The 85th percentile idea sounded like a good one but people largely didn't get it. In subsequent years it was standardised at 11 over any speed limit. This was easier for folk to understand.

The trend still remained. Only people snapped travelling at 11 or more were prosecuted. Remarkable.

At various times over the years the tolerance has been varied, and the policy is what it is today...

That's interesting...

at present the default speed on any road is 10km/h over that which is posted... and above that speed you are targeted...

However, with the target speed and, consequently, the trigger for a speeding fine set at 85th percentile drivers are probably unable to assess the "default speed" for a section of road as they are most likely unable to access the data to determine the trigger speed. Would this method have a positive result on driving behaviour?

It would mean that speeds on roads would need to be monitored more regularly so that the 85th percentile is as accurate as possible...

Just thinking out loud...

[pritch]

That's interesting...

at present the default speed on any road is 10km/h over that which is posted... and above that speed you are targeted...

I thought it was 4kph until the end of the month. I wonder how that's working for them?

[Moi]

I thought it was 4kph until the end of the month. I wonder how that's working for them?

True, but let's ignore the Christmas / New Year "special offer"...

and use the figures Rastus supplied...

[Gremlin]

Does anyone remember when speed cameras first came out they were for road safety, so they were to be highly visible, not hidden be hind trees in unmarked vehicle
No the cops would never do it for revenue gathering

Hah, my dad picked up 3 camera tickets in one morning from the same camera mid December. All for 55 in a 50. Rules are rules obviously, but I have to ask, how exactly did that help? He had no idea until he received the notices after New Year... and given the propensity to now site cameras at the bottom of hills... I'm not surprised what the general public think (note, there will always be those shouting and screaming and hating the police, but I prefer to refer to the "general" public)

[nzspokes]

What a completely stupid thing to say. What about the other branches of the police? How do they pull in the money to get paid if your suggestion is correct? Sell the drugs they seize? Invoice the drunks who start a bar fight? Tax the proceeds of stolen goods?

I admire Rastus, he keeps trying to start sensible discussion on this board. Gotta wonder why.

Where do you think the money comes from to pay the police champ?

If the Govt can have it self funding them why wouldnt they?

[Ulsterkiwi]

Where do you think the money comes from to pay the police champ?

If the Govt can have it self funding them why wouldnt they?

clearly from our tax dollar champ, that however is not the point of the original thread.

your inference was Cops are handing out tickets so they can get paid or that the issuing of tickets was responsible for maintaining the police budget.

Of course ticketing raises revenue but the accusation that there is some kind of perk to writing them is dumb, Rastus made reference to that and your response was directly to his statement that he is still waiting for direct financial benefit from writing tickets if such a thing were true.

No issue with questioning or criticising an imperfect system, cynicism and incorrect inferences are not helpful.

[nzspokes]

No issue with questioning or criticising an imperfect system

Apparently you do....

An balanced and fair Police force is a lie some of us dont believe anymore.

[RGVforme]

That's interesting...

at present the default speed on any road is 10km/h over that which is posted... and above that speed you are targeted...

However, with the target speed and, consequently, the trigger for a speeding fine set at 85th percentile drivers are probably unable to assess the "default speed" for a section of road as they are most likely unable to access the data to determine the trigger speed. Would this method have a positive result on driving behaviour?

It would mean that speeds on roads would need to be monitored more regularly so that the 85th percentile is as accurate as possible...

Just thinking out loud...

"Only targeted after your 10km over the posted speed limit".

Are you sure? or are you just quoting.... Either way im not buying unless your paying the fine if wrong.

Always thought that the 10km over thing was up to the police officers discretion but also allows for speedo calibration difference between models and speedo drive component wear Vs the scanner/camera involved.

Perhaps this is why everyone thinks 10kms over is safe having driven past a cop/camera at 8kms over the posted and been ok.

Why I also thought that the 4km limit was a bit stupid as anybody can argue that "I was smack on 100" and have a good chance of being right but would have to go though the motions ie VTNZ check? or something to prove it.

Im sure I seen a tv show that had a workshop do some tests on some cars speedos and found that all has a lower speed than the clock showed by 4 to 8 km.

Run my Navman on two diff bikes and three cars and they all show a slight different but all lower than speedo read speed.

Still I think doing 60km in a 50 or 110km in a 100 past a oncoming police car is bound to get you targeted in some way shape or form.
Pity they fine you per km back to the posted speed limit when caught.

[Duncan74]

To save the trouble, then I shall go directly to hell once I've finished writing this post. I know I deserve to be burnt at a stake, etc etc.

Ok, first off the biggest change to demerits I'd make is to assign demerit points to fixed and mobile cameras too. Yes, I appreciate that someone can pick up enough points to go from clean to no license in the time that it takes to post them, but only if said person is consistently driving in excess of the legal limit.

The problem with just cash fines is that they are zero deterrent to the very rich / poor, and have to be set at a realistic level for the 'lower middle' income to be able to pay.

Why is there such a focus on drink driving and speeding? Because they are two things that as a driver / rider I have complete control over. Ok, add in using mobile phone (distraction), but most of the other causes, or factors in crashes involve some element of combined factors of other drivers actions, vehicle or road defect, or external distraction.

And whilst there is a huge spend on safer roads, one of the most effective ways in reducing crashes and reducing the severity of the crash when they happen is to reduce the energy in that crash by lowering the speed. In many cases then it's not just your speed, but the combined speed of the other vehicle. So Two vehicles head on travelling at 90 - 180kph less any braking they do, so say 150kph (-15kph). Two vehicles at 120 kph, then 240kph, less time to slow, so say 225kph (-7.5kph) impact speed. Even if we are as individuals perfect drivers (trust me, we aren't) then part of driving is recognising that you are operating in an environment where others make mistakes and are in vehicles that may not be able to slow or steer in teh same way as yours.

Now I'm not sure why there is a general view that speed limits don't really apply, and there's a 'game' involved in exceeding them. Most other laws are pretty clear cut. You don't shoplift for items less than 10% of what you pay for in the superparket. You don't give someone a light punch in the face and expect to get away with it. But excess speed for conditions (note not exceeding speed limit) which (amongst a whole range of other contributory factors) can clearly be linked to deaths and serious injuries we seem to find acceptable as a society. Unless we get overtaken by a cap wearing yoof in a subaru with a dustbin exhaust of course.

So what's the link between excess speed and speed limits? Well if we have an open road speed limit of 140kph for example, then there would be lots more corners where you'd need to slow so as not to be carrying excess speed. And there would be a much greater spread of speeds on the open road, and so more people would want / need to overtake. And that overtaking is a serious risk factor. Hence the 90 speed limit on SH2 for example. It's not really that the road is only safe to travel at 90kph for most vehicles in most conditions, it's that by slapping a 90kph limit discourages those wanting to travel at 100 (ie 110kph) from overtaking, and you get a steady 'train' of vehicles all doing 90kph with no overtaking that is about as safe as you can get. I must admit I'm not totally convinced by the 90kph limit on one of the dual carriageway bits, but lets ignore that.

What do I feel when I see a police car pulled in to the side clearly waiting for speeders. Well when on the bike then I'm grateful that someone's out there doing something to keep me safe. Without the 'threat' of the ticket and demerit then I know that there would be a significant increase in me being wiped out by someone out of control. How can I be so sure? Because even with the rules and imperfect enforcement then there are still 300 people a year dying on our roads. If we all drove at 70 (open road) then there would still be >100 a year as crashes would still happen, and even with lower speeds, then that would still result in deaths. If we drove faster then that figure would go up, no doubt in my mind as it's simple physics.

[Moi]

"Only targeted after your 10km over the posted speed limit".

Are you sure? or are you just quoting.... Either way I'm not buying unless you're paying the fine, if wrong.

Always thought that the 10km over thing was up to the police officers discretion but also allows for speedo calibration difference between models and speedo drive component wear Vs the scanner/camera involved.

Perhaps this is why everyone thinks 10kms over is safe having driven past a cop/camera at 8kms over the posted and been ok.

Why I also thought that the 4km limit was a bit stupid as anybody can argue that "I was smack on 100" and have a good chance of being right but would have to go though the motions ie VTNZ check? or something to prove it.

Im sure I seen a tv show that had a workshop do some tests on some cars speedos and found that all has a lower speed than the clock showed by 4 to 8 km.

Run my Navman on two diff bikes and three cars and they all show a slight different but all lower than speedo read speed.

Still I think doing 60km in a 50 or 110km in a 100 past a oncoming police car is bound to get you targeted in some way shape or form.
Pity they fine you per km back to the posted speed limit when caught.

I was using the figures that Rastus had used. That way there are no new figures introduced to the discussion.

As for your fine... charge it to C Rime...

[FJRider]

.....all about revenue gathering.......

Demerits are not about revenue gathering ... the fines are.

Enough demerits and you walk for a bit.


I wonder how many Members of Parliament are KB members too .. ???

A few ride motorcycles ... write THEM a letter ... What harm could that do .. ??