Stupid Stupid Demerits System

[Ulsterkiwi]

Apparently you do....

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

apparently you do not read so well.

The focus on speed is wrong, the demerits system is screwed up with an imbalance which does not reflect its stated intent. Road policing should in my opinion have a complete overhaul in terms of policy and strategy.

Having a go at individuals is not helpful. Inferring officers benefit from enforcement is incorrect.

[nzspokes]

Inferring officers benefit from enforcement is incorrect.

Would they have a job if they didnt?

[FJRider]

Never mind that fact that you get demerits for not licensing your vehicle but none for doing 49 kmh over a speed limit past a camera.

As I recall ... At more than 40 km/h above the speed limit you get a 28-day licence suspension.

At more than 50 km/h over the limit you could be charged with careless, dangerous or reckless driving.

The purpose of the demerits is the possibility of a (slow) loss of license ... if you continue with the various infringements that gather demerits ...

No doubt the list of such will be added to at some stage.

[swbarnett]

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.

I have complete control (money willing) of which vehicle I drive as well. Does that mean you would advocate banning any vehicle that doesn't have a 5-start safety rating? That's motorcycles done with then.

What about the other million and one things that I can do to ensure that me and those around me are as near to 100% safe as it is possible to get? Why pick on one that has little or no bearing on road safety?


If life is to be lived then it must be lived on our own terms (as long as we ensure that others are free to do the same). Not those of some power-hungry tossers that don't know me from an amoeba. Anything else is just existing and we'd all be better off topping ourselves.

[FJRider]

Would they have a job if they didnt?

If everybody obeyed more of the traffic regulations (especially the ones that endanger motorcyclists) ... a few might be put out of work.

What a bugger that would be eh .. ??

[RGVforme]

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...

[Duncan74]

I have complete control (money willing) of which vehicle I drive as well. Does that mean you would advocate banning any vehicle that doesn't have a 5-start safety rating? That's motorcycles done with then.

And that's why ACC incentivises through more risky vehicles (bikes and low star rating cars) subsidising those vehicles that are safer (4/5 star). Both my cars (pajero and golf) are 5 star and so pay the lowest ACC. My parents Tiida pays more as it doesn't have the same safety rating. When I went looking for the golf the requirements I had was '5 star NCAP' as there is a particulary dangerous intersection we drive through every day.

Would I like to see all 3 star and less cars replaced by 5 (or 6) star. Yes, but I appreciate that's not economically pratical for many. So incentivise not banning as there would be too greater disbenefits to some from banning.

I appreciate we have different views on if speed has any bearing on road safety. You think it has little to no bearing. I'm comfortable with my view that the higher the speed the greater the chance of a crash (less reaction time to forseeale and unexpected events, laws of physics in terms of friction and momentum), and the greater the injury from that crash. I'm assuming that we're both pretty set in that view so probably one to agree to disagree on?

[Duncan74]

If everybody obeyed more of the traffic regulations (especially the ones that endanger motorcyclists) ... a few might be put out of work.

What a bugger that would be eh .. ??

Also less nurses, surgeons, panel beaters, ambos, insurance assessors, road designers (without crashes no econonomic justification for improvements), ......

(tongue in cheek)

[RDJ]

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?.

There is more than one way to Defur the Feline of Motivation. Nothing so crass as a cheque for writing up tickets is needed - just the career advancement (or even just being left alone by the hierarchy) that comes with Acting Aligned to the Motives of The Management.

This lesson from Sweden (and also Cologne more recently) while entirely different in subject from traffic tickets, does show one how nothing needs to be said or paid for, for an enforcement (or any other) organization to take, or be influenced down, a particular path of activity or inactivity...

Swedish police find themselves under investigation after covering up incidents of sexual assaults allegedly perpetrated by immigrants at a music festival in Stockholm.

This information has come to light after newspaper Dagens Nyheter cited internal police memos that mirror similar incidents taking place in Germany where numerous women were raped by Muslim men on New Years Eve.

The country has become the rape capital of the world in recent years with media and politicians trying desperately to mask this fact.

Bloomberg reports National Police Commissioner Dan Eliasson vowed to investigate whether there had been a cover up. He admits the girls could have potentially been saved.

“We could perhaps have prevented that girls had been molested if we had talked clearly about this. Secondly, it’s obviously not our role to take various political aspects into account,” he said.

Despite admitting it was a mistake to not tell the public about the sexual attacks, the policy of Swedish police is to never reveal the ethnicity or background of alleged perpetrators.


No-one is suggesting (the Swedish) police were paid not to report ethnicity. It just "wasn't the thing to do" dontcha know...

[swbarnett]

Would I like to see all 3 star and less cars replaced by 5 (or 6) star. Yes,

I take it you'd like to see all motorcycles replaced with 5 (or 6) star vehicles as well?

I'm comfortable with my view that the higher the speed the greater the chance of a crash (less reaction time to forseeale and unexpected events, laws of physics in terms of friction and momentum), and the greater the injury from that crash.

Lower speed can mean more boredom and therefore more distraction. Laws of human nature (and physics). It has been shown (sorry, can't remember the study) that in a 50kph area an attentive drive at 80kph is 100 times safer (less likely to crash) than a distracted driver at 50kph.

I'm assuming that we're both pretty set in that view so probably one to agree to disagree on?

To say that I'm set in my view is over stating things a bit. Yes, I'm pretty sure that I'm right. But I'm not set in concrete. If someone actually came up with a logical argument that showed the opposite I would gladly give it careful consideration. If I could not fault their logic I would concede that they had a point. I've done this on a number of occasions over my life. It's just the process of learning.

[WristTwister]

I agree with the OP, running a red light is right up there with the worst things you can do driving. But it's also true drivers don't worry too much about how good they are at driving anyway, it is just a means to get from A to B for many people. Maybe the best way to teach people to be better safer road users is to show us in adverts, rather than show another drunk person or speedster having an accident.

I know ACC offer scooter riders urban rider training, but I wonder how many have bothered to take them up on it? A shame really as scooter accidents count towards motorcycle statistics as well. A significant number of motorcycle accidents happen in urban areas - and I'd bet that they are scooters because there are so many in the cities.

[Duncan74]

I take it you'd like to see all motorcycles replaced with 5 (or 6) star vehicles as well?

Whilst not bulletproof in logic, then I would suggest that there is no inherent disbenefit to replacing a 2 star car with a 5 star as they can both do the same. A bike is a different form of transport, and so is akin to replacing a snowmobile with a pair of skis, or a canoe with a submarine - you're changing the function, not just enhancing the specific mode of travel.

Lower speed can mean more boredom and therefore more distraction. Laws of human nature (and physics). It has been shown (sorry, can't remember the study) that in a 50kph area an attentive drive at 80kph is 100 times safer (less likely to crash) than a distracted driver at 50kph.

I'd love to see that study if you do find it - genuine interest. However it would count as an extreme outlier amongst countless studies that show the opposite in terms of lower speed limits being safer, especially in urban areas (infered from your 50kph). Logically then if this was the case (higher speeds safer) then why would we have lower speeds? Even accepting the very specific premise of the study as you've stated it (not implying you're misquoting, just being clear that I am taking what you have said and assuming that there is robust evidence to support it), then you would also need to show that increasing the speed to 80 increase the proportion of attentive drivers. Also you're not taking into account that at 50 there is a far far higher chance of the pedestrian living in those crashes that still occur.

http://www.gw.govt.nz/assets/Transpo...eeds-image.jpg

To say that I'm set in my view is over stating things a bit. Yes, I'm pretty sure that I'm right. But I'm not set in concrete. If someone actually came up with a logical argument that showed the opposite I would gladly give it careful consideration. If I could not fault their logic I would concede that they had a point. I've done this on a number of occasions over my life. It's just the process of learning.

Based on the above would it be fair to suggest that the case for alowing higher speed is that it would enhance driver/rider concentration and therefore that would lead to less crashes through distraction? Are there other factors that increased speed would have on decreasing the casualty numbers and severity of casualty? My thinking here is that there will be some things that we can probably agree are worse from higher speeds (in the case of a crash the severity of injury to pedestrian, cyclist, biker and occupants of car), greater breaking distance, and some others. Some that are positive (ie higher speed some correlation to greater attention). And some that are separate (let's assume speed is not materially linked to the existance of road or vehicle defects, the number of other drivers on the road that are drunk or tourists.

(off out, so apologise for posting and running).

[Flip]

IMHO the police in nz have blown any credability they had in this country, The 4km tolerance is nothing but tax collecting its got fuck all to do with safety. I would give the NZ police the same social status these days as dog catchers, building inspectors and parking enforcement officers. The rozza wonder why people don't help the police anymore. That video of the cop car with a broken tail light that was posted on social media recently was a prime example. Why are there no demerit points for running a red light? Why, because they are really difficult to enforce on push bike riders and there is other easier tax targets out there.

[WristTwister]

• 13% Rider affected by alcohol or drugs
• 18% Speed or travelling too fast for the conditions
• 16% Combination of alcohol/drugs and speed
• 53% Other

Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of all motorcycle injury crashes occur on urban (speed limit of 70km/h
or less) roads.


[Source: Ministry of Transport (NZ)]

[swbarnett]

I would suggest that there is no inherent disbenefit to replacing a 2 star car with a 5 star

On the face of it I would agree with this. Until we start to consider the financial and resource cost of the 5 star car. We have resource and economic issues in the world already. The extra safety gained may not be worth the cost of the extra safety features required to produce a 5 star over a 2 star car when the bigger picture is considered.

A bike is a different form of transport, and so is akin to replacing a snowmobile with a pair of skis, or a canoe with a submarine - you're changing the function, not just enhancing the specific mode of travel.

A motorcycle takes one person (mostly) from point A to point B. A 5 start car does the same job (and more) at about the same speed (traffic not withstanding). The "function" of a bike is the same as that of a car (the fun factor is somewhat different though). To make the snowmobile and canoe analogies fit you'd have to liken it to replacing a motorcycle with a pair of shoes.

I'd love to see that study if you do find it - genuine interest.

Unfortunately I lost the reference and can't find it again.

However it would count as an extreme outlier amongst countless studies that show the opposite in terms of lower speed limits being safer, especially in urban areas (infered from your 50kph).

This study wasn't looking at speed limits per se. It looked into the accident rates for attentive vs distracted drivers at different speeds. On top of saying that an attentive driver is much safer at 80kph than a distracted one at 50kph it also said that a distracted driver at 80kph is another order of dangerous again.

Logically then if this was the case (higher speeds safer) then why would we have lower speeds? Even accepting the very specific premise of the study as you've stated it (not implying you're misquoting, just being clear that I am taking what you have said and assuming that there is robust evidence to support it), then you would also need to show that increasing the speed to 80 increase the proportion of attentive drivers. Also you're not taking into account that at 50 there is a far far higher chance of the pedestrian living in those crashes that still occur.

The main point of the study was that it doesn't matter if you're doing 50kph if you don't see the ped until they're touching your bumper. The attentive driver at 80kph is more likely to be able to avoid the ped because they react long before the point of impact.

Based on the above would it be fair to suggest that the case for alowing higher speed is that it would enhance driver/rider concentration and therefore that would lead to less crashes through distraction?

That's the theory. Also, if everyone is allowed to find their natural speed then you will have more engaged drivers. For some even 50kph is too high. If you remove speed limits then they won't feel the pressure to travel at the speed limit and can drive slower.

Are there other factors that increased speed would have on decreasing the casualty numbers and severity of casualty?

Distraction would be the main one. Another could be (my own theory here) that at higher speeds a given road can handle more vehicles in a given unit of time, thus reducing congestion and the opportunity for a collision to occur.

My thinking here is that there will be some things that we can probably agree are worse from higher speeds (in the case of a crash the severity of injury to pedestrian, cyclist, biker and occupants of car),

Yes, if you do have a collision then higher impact speed will likely lead to greater damage. I say likely because it does depend on the geometry of the crash. At a higher speed the collision may only be glancing rather than square on, for example. Of course the reverse may also be true.

greater breaking distance,

This is really where the distraction theory comes in. If the driver at 80kph is aware of what's going on around them then they will react much earlier than the distracted driver at 50kph. Hence they will in all likelihood stop in a shorter distance (in the worst case the distracted drive won't stop at all).