Pretty much what I put it down too. Though from a public perception perspective its very bad for them to go on about road safety but not do much about it when prompted as I have seen on more than one occasion.
It's a losing battle I think, everyone's got their hands out asking for more money, differently governments promise this and that but instead throw the money at the stuff that will get them votes ("free" tertiary education springs to mind), which more Police or better pay for nurses probably wont help on the wide scale for gaining lots of votes.
TOP QUOTE: “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”
Science Is But An Organized System Of Ignorance"Pornography: The thing with billions of views that nobody watches" - WhiteManBehindADesk
If We're all honest and look objectively it fits reality. Eg most if not all of us speed or break speed limits often, we just don't get caught often but its prob the offence most people commit most often and therefore will always be orders of magnitude ahead on real enforcement.
Most of us if we're honest prob less frequently than we speed occasionally take a cell call, forget seatbelt briefly, make bad call on red light phase, have one to many at pub..... but because it's not very often then not very many will be ticketed.
Surprised the phone camera experiment only showed 3% infringement rate, but then compared to the time duration the offence lasts versus the journey time and chance of apprehension I think the offending rate must be much higher.
Eg drunk drivers are always about 1.5%-2% at any checkpoint but the offending occurs during 100% of journey time so easier detection.
I've been back on truck driving duties last couple weeks and seat of the pants observation is that way more than 3% are cellphone driving.... what's really disturbing is I'm seeing about 5 people a night with no lights on during a max of 200km urban driving!!!!
Govt gives you nothing because it creates nothing - Javier Milei
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.
Govt gives you nothing because it creates nothing - Javier Milei
you've answered it in a nutshell, they only focus on offences that are easy to deal with, what about all the poor driving, careless driving, following too close etc? they simply don't want to be chjallenged and have to waste their time in court i reckon.
simple, cameras in every car, ticket issued then with video evidence it's not the coppers problem to administer, but, they're too fucking scared of having their life recorded i reckon.
Nah, "UNZIPPERINGS", systematically assembled with triple word scores etc. over several goes.
Never forgave my old man for that one ... during the UK coal miners' strike and power cuts of the 1970s.
Many, many babies were conceived around that time.
"Shout! Shout! Let the clutch out!" Gears for Fears
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).
Once again, police take the easy route, continue focusing on speed, no plans to change.
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.
TOP QUOTE: “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”
Just to reply on the drugged driving point alone:
I'm not quite sure how you actually envisaged Police officers enforcing drugged
driving to a greater extent.
1. Random Stopping
If I understand it correctly, there are restrictions under the Human Rights Act
(or Bill of Rights) that legislate against a person being "unlawfully detained or
arrested". The lawyers on KB will be able to comment much better than I.
I'm sure a few adverse court case decisions (stopping people without due cause)
would make Police cautious.
2. Organised Stopping
I don't know whether current legislation grants Police the right to subject a driver
to an impairment test when their vehicle is captured via a roadside (booze bus) stop.
Specifically if the driver showed no signs of impairment while driving.
The conditions under which we allow ourselves to be subjected to a roadside stop and a
5 second breath alcohol test (under the above scenario) should perhaps not be assumed
to apply automatically to drugged driving as well.
leaving ....
3. Random Sighting
Which effectively leaves it down to an officer actually sighting a driver "operating their
vehicle in a visibly unsafe manner", stopping them, and then subjecting them to an alcohol
breath test and / or a roadside impairment test.
If:
- the number of Police vehicles on the road at any time is relatively low ;
- the Police officer is not necessarily travelling in the same direction ; and
- the time period over which an officer might need to watch a driver (in order to judge
that the driver might be impaired) is long,
then unless the driver does an unsafe manoeuvre right in front, I'd wager the chance of
a roadside stop - due to suspected drugged driving - is then quite low.
Just my thoughts.
It's about an allocation of resources - police (as an organisation) have made the conscious decision to focus virtually all of their resources on speed. They could easily reallocate some of those resources to the things people WANT to be policed - alcohol, drugs, red lights, phones etc. But it's harder to prove results, so as usual a government body has taken the easy route.
There is nothing in the BOR or any other act of parliament stopping police from doing random stops - they do it every single day.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks