No Offence Intended

[Mike.Gayner]

Look, why don't you just apply for a job at NZ Police? Clearly you are so genius you have figured it all out.

I prefer not to make my living sucking on the government tit - I've worked with government organisations before, and it's not my cup of tea.

[Autech]

Do you understand the concept of going slower also gives you a chance to take evasive action. Also not every road user has Rossi level depth and speed perception. We all speed from time to time, if you can't admit/realise the extra element of danger and risk, along with the impact of it on other road users decisions then your doomed to be a statistic. By all means feel free to speed but accept and think of the risks to mitigate the higher hazard level.

You do get the point I was trying to make though about where you are at a given point in time is dicatated by the speed you go?
So therefore theoretically if a truck crashed across the centre line at point A at precisely 7:44.05AM and you get squished, if for example you had been going 10kmph faster for say, 10 seconds at some stage in your journey you would not have been in that precise place and time to get squished, it would have happened to the poor bastard behind you as if my maths is correct you would be 30 metres further up the road.
Ditto if you had been going 10kms slower. You can't predict what will happen so your logic is true, slower is better if shit goes tits up

Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk

[EJK]

Actually he is doing what journalists "should do", which is gathering information and providing it for the wider community to consider.

Sadly "journalists" then step over the line and ram their opinions & personal bias down the throat of the public in a manner that Linda Lovelace would struggle to cope with.

Perhaps. But it doesn't help with his royal Mike Gay-ness attitude calling NZ Police, who are like any of us working professionals, "fucking idiots and civil parasites."

Data is one thing, he is translating data in a way only to justify his own personal opinion to point fingers at the police for "not doing their job".

I believe NZ police deserve more respect than some comments from a keyboard warrior.

[Viking01]

There is nothing in the BOR or any other act of parliament stopping police from doing random stops - they do it every single day.

I'd still disagree with you on your last point - regarding the Bill of Rights Act.

It's true that officers of various Crown organisations (including Police) do have
powers to stop an individual, but :

- being stopped and detained must be for a "clearly identified reason"; and
- it must be subject to the powers granted to the officer under the relevant Act.

BORA sections 21 and 24 relate to "unreasonable search and seizure":

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...DLM224792.html

(where being "stopped and detained" would fall under "seizure").

There is obviously a range of specific conditions under which "stopping of a citizen
going about their normal daily business" is permitted.

Organisations such as Citizens Advice and NORML offer advice relating to "search
and seizure" for quite a variety of scenarios (including driving) e.g.

http://www.cab.org.nz/vat/gl/roi/Pag...arrants.aspx#6

https://norml.org.nz/rights/

So while Police no doubt do perform "random stops" every day, we'll have to trust
that they do so within the bounds of their delegated power.





[ We won't talk about Nicky Hager ]

[SaferRides]

Interesting story in the paper today:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/cri...n-drinkdrivers

So despite the fact that drugs are now responsible for more fatalities than alcohol, there is still virtually no enforcement of drugs impairment while driving (it's such a tiny sliver in this chart you can't even see it).

Attachment 337278

Once again, police take the easy route, continue focusing on speed, no plans to change.

Actually, the previous government decided against saliva testing for drugs after it was proposed by the police.

All too typical of the Key government unfortunately.

[Viking01]

Actually, the previous government decided against saliva testing for drugs after it was proposed by the police.

All too typical of the Key government unfortunately.

Might have been due to some consideration of:

- the maturity of saliva screening (for drugs excluding cannabis or MDMA / amphetamine)
- the likely cost of such test kits
- the length of time that a driver might be "detained" (in order for the test to complete)
- the lack of supporting legislation within NZ

Just saying.

[SaferRides]

The Aussies manage to do it. But even from watching RBT occasionally, they seem to have problems with testing for THC.

[F5 Dave]

I'm glad you brought this drugs thing up.
So reading the beat up in Stuffup the question occurred;
Being that some drugs show for a month, are these people actually impaired or just tested positive for the drug?

I'm not a stoner even slightly but we should always be honest with the truth.

Furthermore I wonder how long one stays impaired from a night on the turps? So after a late bender the morning after you might blow over limit. But being that it is the brains release of chemicals once encountering alcohol not the alcohol itself. So is the impairment equivalent to the breath measurement after many hours of the effect? I don't know the answer to that question.
While fatigue and lack of sleep are very bad things is the reading one might blow fully relevant?

[rastuscat]

There has always been a method to prosecute impaired drivers.

It was under the Transport Act 1962 Section 58(1)(e). A driver could be prosecuted if driving in such a state as to be incapable of proper control of a vehicle. Typical examples were when a driver fell out of a car when a traffic cop opened the drivers door. It was evidence given by an officer who had at least a few years of experience and was in a position to qualify themself to the court, or a doctor. Basically, if it was practical, you'd get them back and have the doctor certify then as incapable. Interstingly, this often included similar tests to today's system, but more on that later.

Our legislation changed when th Transport Act was substituted with the Land Transport Act, but the offences basically remained the same.

When Strines introduced their saliva tests, NZ stood back and watched. A short time later, some poor beggar over there was prosecuted on a drug drive saliva test, and the authorities were forced to accept it had been a false positive. he was paid a gazillion dollars in compensation. We laughed, and it justified our stance on saliva tests.

At around the same time we started doing a thing called a Field Impairment Test. A company from the UK came over and trained a few of us how to do those walk the line, eye test sort of tests. I learned what horizontal gaze nystagmus was. But it was voluntary. If I had good cause to suspect comsumption of drugs prior to driving I could request a driver to undergo a Field Impairment Test, or FIT. If they failed, they were prosecuted under the old Driving While Incapable law. Very, very few cops were trained, and even fewer felt confident to use the 7 stage tests. Walk and Turn, Walk The Line, HGN and VGN tests. Basically, a series of divided attention tasks, which made the driver look embarressed and displayed impairment like a wart on a witches nose.

Then it all changed. A new law was introduced, where a driver could be charged with Driving While Incapable where they displayed impairment as ascertained by a Compulsory Impairment Test, AND HAD DRUGS IN THEIR BLOOD. A CIT was a paired down version of the FIT, all validated, and actually quite good if conducted confidently and with knowledge. I was trained as an instructor, and sent out to train my fellow gendarmes to conduct CIT testing.

Not many of these tests are done, as again, the Police tried to roll out training in a manner that left most cops lacking confidence to do the Compulsory Impairment Test. It felt like black magic, despite the fact that each of the stages in the CIT had been scientifically validated. And there was a backup, being that someone with no drugs in their blood could be prosecuted, even if the cop deigned that they were impaired.

To be fair, very few cops ever ruled that a person was impaired if they weren't, as the cop knew that it was a waste of a big stack of dosh to test the blood if no drugs were present.

And that's the key to it. Impairment. Having drugs in your blood doesn't necessarily mean that you are impaired. If you smoked a joint last weekend, there would still be something to show that in your blood, or saliva, but you would likely no longer be impaired. Remember impairment as determined by a CIT, and only then could a blood sample be taken, which had to show drugs for a Driving While Impaired charge to be laid.

Basically, it's a rigmarole, leading to not many prosecutions for that offence. In addition, the process is to stop a driver, and if they fail an alcohol breath test, they go down the alcohol route, even if they stink of dope and claim to be the local king of dak.

So, it's been a few years since saliva testing has been running in our test programme (Oztralia), and I reckon they'll be heading down that track here. Remember, I've been out for 3 years now, and change happens. Stuff I don't know about.

One point to note. It's not tasty to set a limit (like an alcohol limit) for an illegal drug. You could, like zero, but that would effectively be a prosecution for a drug offence, not a driving offence. It's possible to have drug evidence in your saliva and blood and have no impairment. In a time where decriminalisation of cannabis is a cause du jour, that won't fly.

The only people who can be prosecuted without much due process is those in hospital arising from a crash where their blood, compulsorily obtained, is found to contain a Class A drug. Cannabis is Class C.

Still, I'm sure the problem can easily be solved by a few keyboard warriors venting about how easy it would be to fix the problem.

[rastuscat]

I'm glad you brought this drugs thing up.
So reading the beat up in Stuffup the question occurred;
Being that some drugs show for a month, are these people actually impaired or just tested positive for the drug?

Per my other post, that's the key. The presence of drugs does not mean impairment.

Alcohol has had so much scientific driving research done on it that there's a correlation between blood alcohol levels and impairment. That's how we set a limit.

Furthermore I wonder how long one stays impaired from a night on the turps? So after a late bender the morning after you might blow over limit. But being that it is the brains release of chemicals once encountering alcohol not the alcohol itself. So is the impairment equivalent to the breath measurement after many hours of the effect? I don't know the answer to that question.

I've had the displeasure of processing a few for drink driving the morning after. But then, I've also had the displeasure of attending a few Sunday morning crashes where people have crashed after a nights sleep, due to impairment from alcohol from the night before.

[Viking01]

[QUOTE=rastuscat;1131101176]There has always been a method to prosecute impaired drivers.

Rastus,

Excellent summary. Thanks.

Cheers

Edit: Forgot to add link below (last update 28/05/2018)

https://www.transport.govt.nz/legisl...reddrivinglaw/

[F5 Dave]

Thanks Rastus. What it does say is that stuff article could easily have been shock bollocks.

Certainly I have woken up pissed, but I've also used my tester to gauge how quickly it drops off at the tail end. Stopping early is the go.
Wait that extra couple of hours if there is any question. If it's been an all nighter drinking late then turn on the telly and order pizza. You'll need something to throw up.

But I still wonder how strong the link is compared to when the brain is early in the process.
Making up facts, maybe it is 30% less after than at the start. With no real basis than gut feeling.
clearly if you drop a bottle of vodka till 3am and get up at 8 to get to work you will be well well over and well well impaired.
But I can't see anyone rushing out to scientifically prove one way or the other.

[Mike.Gayner]

Perhaps. But it doesn't help with his royal Mike Gay-ness attitude calling NZ Police, who are like any of us working professionals, "fucking idiots and civil parasites."

Data is one thing, he is translating data in a way only to justify his own personal opinion to point fingers at the police for "not doing their job".

I believe NZ police deserve more respect than some comments from a keyboard warrior.

Don't know what's gotten you so upset - is your husband a cop?

[Hoonicorn]

Ngauranga gorge's speed camera has been the biggest earner, last year they made $2.4 million from that one camera location alone. I'd be keen to know if it's the downhill side that makes the most.
Speed is an easy target for police but car safety improvements have probably done more for reducing the road toll than a speed camera ever did. I would like to see more red light cameras though, red light runners are a deadly danger to anyone on 2 wheels.

[Autech]

There's one at the base of the Kaimai ranges I noticed the other day. Right in an overtaking zone...

"Safety"

Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk