Stupid Stupid Demerits System

[rastuscat]

Left the job a few months ago but I ain't letting this go.

The demerit point system in New Zealand was designed to deter poor driving which posed a risk to other members of society.

In recent years demerit points have been introduced for such non-safety offences as having a noisy exhaust (introduced as a knee jerk reaction to Christchurch's boy racer problem) and failing to licence your vehicle.

This in light of there being no demerit points for driving through a red traffic light (hard to believe, but true) or no demerits for not wearing a seat belt.

Letters written to Simon Bridges & Stephen Joyce have been met with letters failing to address the matter even remotely.

When it was personally drawn to the attention of Judith Collins, she responded by suggesting I write to Stephen Joyce!!

Surely if demerits can be allocated so quickly for non-safety offences, these two offences (red lights and seatbelts) can be addressed.

How's anyone else feel about it?

[Bikemad]

Left the job a few months ago but I ain't letting this go.

The demerit point system in New Zealand was designed to deter poor driving which posed a risk to other members of society.

In recent years demerit points have been introduced for such non-safety offences as having a noisy exhaust (introduced as a knee jerk reaction to Christchurch's boy racer problem) and failing to licence your vehicle.

This in light of there being no demerit points for driving through a red traffic light (hard to believe, but true) or no demerits for not wearing a seat belt.

Letters written to Simon Bridges & Stephen Joyce have been met with letters failing to address the matter even remotely.

When it was personally drawn to the attention of Judith Collins, she responded by suggesting I write to Stephen Joyce!!

Surely if demerits can be allocated so quickly for non-safety offences, these two offences (red lights and seatbelts) can be addressed.

How's anyone else feel about it?

yep it a fuckin joke..........nothing to do with safety.....all about revenue gathering........i recently got stopped on my way to the DGR ride a few months back......fair enough i was speeding slightly......was ticketed for the speeding and riding while on exemption.......no worries about the no WOF though.....safety?.....insert TUI ad here

[Moi]

I'm on your side with this... makes such sense.

Rules for control versus rules for safety...

In a classroom setting I could "sell" rules for safety and the majority of kids would buy in to those rules for their safety...

But try selling rules for control...

However, it was the "rules for control" that were emphasis of very senior management, but they weren't at the chalk-face and it was no good trying to discuss the difference or the kids' resistance to control...

Sounds familiar to what you're saying...

[pritch]

Red lights yes (except for push bikes).

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

[nzspokes]

So you just worked out its about making $$$$$$$

Congratulations, good to see you caught up.

[rastuscat]

So you just worked out its about making $$$$$$$

Congratulations, good to see you caught up.

Nope. The guy writing the ticket doesn't do it for the money.

Maybe someone in Treasury cares but the guys writing the tickets sure don't do it for the money.

[J.A.W.]

Nope. The guy writing the ticket doesn't do it for the money.

Maybe someone in Treasury cares but the guys writing the tickets sure don't do it for the money.

Sure, 'cause no way he/she'd be doing the job professionally.. they do it due to the inherent evil in their black souls..

C'mon, even 'Blind Freddy'can bloody well see that stupid laws such as are being applied - only serve to bring the apparatus of law into discredit within the wider community, & eventually make criminals of trivial 'offenders'..

[Rhys]

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

[rastuscat]

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

Funny you should mention that.

In 1993, when cameras were first introduced, I volunteered to be one of the first two operators of the Auckland City camera car based at Greenlane. It was a Toyota Camry wagon. Marked.

I spent more time going to community groups and various other places doing presentations about the new toy than I ever did operating.

Our output was measured in hours of operation. The computer logged the amount of time spent operating. That was our performance measure. X-number of hours per month.

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.

It's remarkably self selecting. Those when don't exceed the tolerance past a speed camera still don't get prosecuted. It's free. Not everyone has picked that up.

To some extent that 9 months formed my view that too much emphasis in placed on speed to the exclusion of other poor driving behaviours. I've carried that viewxthrough until I left.

Certainly it's an important part of the picture. Speed causes some crashes. But for the vast majority of crashes caused by the other things, the input speed of the folk involved determines the severity of the crash.

Given that nobody knows when it's going to happen (and that nobody ever thinks it will happen to them), the philosophy that things would be better if everyone slowed down overall, prevails.

And I'm still waiting for the cheque for the tickets I've written. As far back as 1988.

[rastuscat]

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.

[nzspokes]

And I'm still waiting for the cheque for the tickets I've written. As far back as 1988.

You have already had it unless you were working for free.

[pritch]

Speed causes some crashes.

A few years ago British Police figures ranked speed as the seventh highest cause of crashes. Looking at the other factors, and never having heard mention of them here, makes me wonder if the NZ Police actually even consider any factors other than speed or alcohol. Which, along with foreign tourists, are all we seem to hear about.

Further, it was thought that ranking of seventh was artificially high due to a percentage of accidents being handled by general duties staff who too readily attribute the cause to excessive speed due to their lack of specialist training. All of which causes me to wonder about the level of training here.

[nzspokes]

All of which causes me to wonder about the level of training here.

What makes you think they are trained?

[Ulsterkiwi]

You have already had it unless you were working for free.

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.

[eldog]

Left the job a few months ago but I ain't letting this go.

The demerit point system in New Zealand was designed to deter poor driving which posed a risk to other members of society.

In recent years demerit points have been introduced for such non-safety offences as having a noisy exhaust (introduced as a knee jerk reaction to Christchurch's boy racer problem) and failing to licence your vehicle.

This in light of there being no demerit points for driving through a red traffic light (hard to believe, but true) or no demerits for not wearing a seat belt.

Surely if demerits can be allocated so quickly for non-safety offences, these two offences (red lights and seatbelts) can be addressed.

How's anyone else feel about it?

So you got the political run around - too much effort for them for what gain in their eyes.
I would suspect most people see red lights and seatbelt as a minor issue (speeding and alcohol being the publics perception and the silver bullet regarding road safety)

You would have seen the end results of what happens when red lights and seat belts are not observed....

I support your efforts but can't see any change to law etc as we are all expert drivers

Would like to see encouragement for the majority of the public to become better drivers (there's a large proportion of the community that driving is a means to an ends - they really only get from A to B and don't consider driving as a skill.

On KB most of use would be able to ride/drive at a higher level and enjoy getting better as road users. Trouble is we are a minority and not really a poster group for the media to promote.