TAWA 40KM/H NOooooooooo!

**spudchucka** · 25th March 2004, 23:19

Originally Posted by Posh Tourer :P

The issue is not the speed limit per se... The issue is the 10kmh tolerance we have cos we are such crap drivers we cant keep closer to the limit. The problem then is people start treating 60 as the limit. So if you go a bit over 60 ie 62-63kmh, you arent (as some people seem to believe) going 2-3kmh too fast, you are infact going 12-13kmh too fast. The tolerance is there not to be a secondary limit, but to allow a bit of relaxation without getting caught. Having said that, I admit I push the limits regularly round town, but I'm quite happy to let people do 50 if they so choose, and I'll give them room... If I want to go on open road in the car and relax a bit, I aim for 105... 100 is a bit slow and you get traffic up your arse, and I know I'll occasionally creep up to 110 anyways... I'll stick to 110 if I feel like concentrating enough to keep my speed more exact...

From the big chief:

http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/1302.php

Officer Discretion Remains For Speeding Tickets
National News Release 2:01pm 24 March 2004

Police Commissioner Rob Robinson says that front line officers continue to have discretion over the issuing of speeding infringements and tolerances up to 10 kilometres over the posted limit remain.

The 10 kilometre tolerance factor has been a police operational policy in recent years and continues to be the policy. It is, however, a "tolerance" and not a defacto maximum speed limit.

Commissioner Robinson said that claims by the Opposition spokesperson on Police that police officers were being told to ticket all drivers over the speed limit were wrong.

"Let me make it crystal clear. There is no link between road policing enforcement and government revenue gathering."

"There is absolutely no connection between the funding of road policing outputs and any revenue derived from infringements issued. The separation was covered in a report by the Auditor General in April 2002 where he clearly dismissed any notion of a link between speed cameras and revenue collection."

"The public are certainly a lot more aware of speed enforcement as my staff are being a lot more effective in enforcing the speed limit."

"This is in line with the policy of general deterrence where the road safety experts tell us that any overall reduction in average road speeds will save lives."

"While Police supervisors and managers have certainly tasked their staff with being productive there is no way that the statutorily enshrined powers of constabular independence are being over-ridden."

Commissioner Robinson said that discretion did cut both ways and that in terms of the legally enforceable limits the posted speed limits were the ones that the public should be aiming to keep within.

"If the road and weather conditions are poor and an officer determines that someone travelling over the limit is unsafe then they may well be ticketed. That is a far cry, however, from a policy of no-discretion," said Mr. Robinson.

The Commissioner noted that as Police moved towards introduction of the "Anywhere Anytime" speed camera programme he expected that political attacks on the police enforcement policies would increase.

"The Year to Date road toll gives me further encouragement we should not back off our current policy. At present we’re heading for a 2004 road toll of 460 plus, way more than the 404 of two years ago."

"It is our job to remind some road users of their obligations to other users of the roads. If they drive safely then all other users are safer. I support the efforts of my staff absolutely in endeavouring to achieve this," said Mr. Robinson.

Hopefully more cops remember that discretion is still an option, especially in a 40 kph zone. Personally I don't think Joe public would be policed overly hard in these new speed zones. It does however lower the threshold for taking a licence from an idiot boy racer thrashing it around residential streets.

**riffer** · 26th March 2004, 01:55

Originally Posted by spudchucka

From the big chief:

TBH spudchucka, when was the last time Rob Robinson spent any time in an HP car checking out drivers?

The fact of the matter is, despite what police bosses say, there is a huge amount of anecdotal evidence which suggests that this is patently NOT the case.

I have personally been pulled over for doing 107 km/h on River Road (100km/h highway) and warned about speed, and pulled over doing 93km/h for a rego, warrant and licence check, as the HP couldn't believe someone on a sports bike would be doing under the limit unless he had something to hide.

I just don't trust the local police to be able tohelp themselves. In the initial stages of introduction of the new limit, they will be out to get the point across. I don't believe I have the necessary patience to sit under 40 km/h throughout the entire length of Tawa.

Therefore I will just avoid the roads. And hopefully the overzealous government-apppointed tax collectors.

**Lou Girardin** · 26th March 2004, 06:57

Same old crap from a uniformed politician. With regard to his comments on unsafe speeds under the tolerance, I wonder if they will also be issuing tickets for unsafe speeds under the limit? For instance 45km/h in Queen St, that's bordering on Speed dangerous when it's busy.
Then he says they shouldn't back off on current policy, despite the road toll rising?
But then he's just following the Police creed; never back down, never apologise.
Lou

**spudchucka** · 26th March 2004, 21:49

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

Same old crap from a uniformed politician. With regard to his comments on unsafe speeds under the tolerance, I wonder if they will also be issuing tickets for unsafe speeds under the limit? For instance 45km/h in Queen St, that's bordering on Speed dangerous when it's busy.
Then he says they shouldn't back off on current policy, despite the road toll rising?
But then he's just following the Police creed; never back down, never apologise.
Lou

Refer to Lou's previous post about coconuts, I knew you couldn't resist.

**pete376403** · 28th March 2004, 18:20

Ok, yes there is discretion and yes there is a quota. So if the cop is behind quota, you can bet your life he/she is not going to excercise discretion.

**spudchucka** · 29th March 2004, 20:10

Originally Posted by pete376403

Ok, yes there is discretion and yes there is a quota. So if the cop is behind quota, you can bet your life he/she is not going to excercise discretion.

The quota is a psuedo one that measures contacts (tickets, warnings, assiting motorists) against hours delivered. Its pretty much a guide that suggests for each hour of traffic enforcemnet a cop should be able to find 2 - 3 traffic offences. Next time you go for a drive count how often you observe stupid or dangerous driving behaviour and generally crapped out unsafe cars. One crapped out car can yield a couple of hours worth of tickets, two of them a day and the so called quota is achieved.

What I'm trying to say is that the required contact rate is not hard to achieve if you are dedicated to traffic work. So the arguement of discretion going out the window because the cop is behind in his quota doesn't wash. As for general duties cops, they tend to do traffic work only when they are in transit between jobs or on very quiet days when they have caught up on the endless paper work. Often they finish one job and are heading directly to the next job and aren't even looking at the radar.

**Lou Girardin** · 30th March 2004, 06:46

Come on Spud, Police management is not going to accept 2 or 3 contacts a day even if it does result in a days quota of tickets.
Lou

**spudchucka** · 30th March 2004, 19:10

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

Come on Spud, Police management is not going to accept 2 or 3 contacts a day even if it does result in a days quota of tickets.
Lou

Obviously not for dedicated trafic units. What I'm saying is that for "traffic" units it isn't hard to fulfill a days worth of tickets because that is pretty much all the are doing, (apart from all the inevitable paper work).

The example I used is a crapped out old car, usually being driven by an unlicensed or disqualified, forbidden driver. Appropriate tickets may include: no warrant, no rego, no licence or driving in breach of licence conditions, unsafe vehicle, baldy tread, no seat belt. Likely outcomes may include: driver arrested (disqualified or forbidden), car impounded, car pink stickered, driver gets a fist full of tickets and is forbidden to drive if he does not have a licence.

If a cop stops a couple of cars like this each day then the stats are taken care of. The point is it isn't hard to do most of the time. Personally I wouldn't like to be a traffic cop and have the pressure of achieving the required traffic stats but I know that it can be achieved without hitting Joe public all of the time. Thats why the discretion going out the window because the cop is behind on his quota arguement doesn't wash with me.

As I've said before if traffic cops were mandatorily rotated back through general duties every couple of years their focus may be directed back to targeting the right section of our "community", ie: the burglars, theives, drug dealers etc.

It's just my opinion.

**pete376403** · 30th March 2004, 21:41

If a cop stops a vehicle and issues a ticket for multiple offenses, eg speeding + no wof + no reg + unlicenced driver, does that count as four seperate "contacts", ie 1 hour 20 minutes worth?

**spudchucka** · 31st March 2004, 06:15

Originally Posted by pete376403

If a cop stops a vehicle and issues a ticket for multiple offenses, eg speeding + no wof + no reg + unlicenced driver, does that count as four seperate "contacts", ie 1 hour 20 minutes worth?

Yes. Each ticket and verbal warning counts as a contact. There can be three offences recorded on one notice, that counts as three contacts. Equally verbal warnings count as contacts. A cop could issue two tickets, (speeding & rego for instance) and warn a driver for three other offences, (bald tyres, no WOF, no seat belt). That would count as five contacts.

Achieving the required traffic stats is easy, thats why I don't accept that discretion is effected by the "quota". I believe the core of the problem is that cops who work traffic too long lose sight of who the good guys are.

Again, just my opinion.

**Lou Girardin** · 31st March 2004, 06:40

I would still dispute that a cop can get away with stopping only 2 or 3 cars a day. He might fool senior management, but not his immediate supervisor.
In low traffic areas, they need to book everything to keep the numbers up and a lot of it needs to be excess speed. Because they're the stats that Police and LTSA want.
Lou

**spudchucka** · 31st March 2004, 11:28

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

I would still dispute that a cop can get away with stopping only 2 or 3 cars a day. He might fool senior management, but not his immediate supervisor.
In low traffic areas, they need to book everything to keep the numbers up and a lot of it needs to be excess speed. Because they're the stats that Police and LTSA want.
Lou

Obviously some areas are easier to achieve results in than others. It still comes down to the cop using his noodle.

**riffer** · 5th April 2004, 11:04

"2.4 Speed limits of 20, 30 and 40 km/h

Speed limits of 20, 30 or 40 km/h may be set for local roads or minor collector roads in urban traffic areas where the road is used by motorised traffic and pedestrians or cyclists (eg, shared zones) and a speed limit less than 50 km/h is necessary for safety purposes. Speed limits of 20, 30 or 40 km/h are generally not suitable for roads serving a significant collector or arterial function.

These limits can only be set if the calculated speed limit for the road is 50 km/h and appropriate and safe traffic engineering techniques are applied to ensure that the mean operating speed of motorised traffic is kept to within 5 km/h of the speed limit."

It would appear that, according to LTSA, it's not just a matter of changing the speed limit and enforcing it with cameras and police. There must be an attempt made to ENGINEER the road so as to force the traffic to drive slower.

I wonder if you could mount a challenge to a ticket based on the road not being engineered to reduce speed of your vehicle?

**Angry Puppy** · 7th April 2004, 16:12

Originally Posted by Fazer Bloke

Hasn't your brother heard of charcoal. must make the snags taste funny!

Seriously though, I live rond the corner from a couple of large schools and the number of times I've had people overtake me or ride my bumper for doing 50 in a 50 zone..... Changing the limit to 40 would acheive squat. traffic calming measures and appropriate use of speed cameras (i.e. not as cash-cows like in the UK) are the only ways you are going to pacify traffic.

I don't care if we're talking cars or bikes, the laws the law. if you want to drive or ride your toy to the best of it's ability, go on a track day!

OK, I'm not quite sure why this has earned me an extra notch on the 'most disreputable' ladder, but whoever you are, WHATEVER!

**FROSTY:Me** · 23rd May 2004, 12:39

As a parent I think my cul de sac street should be a 20km/h zone and strictly enforced with baseball bats when the lil hoon idiots rip down there at 100mph and use it as a skid pan. As a biker 40km/h on a main road would be a total drag.
I think a complete revamp of speed limits is needed with some arterial roads having their speed limits RAISED from50 to 70 and some side roads having their speed limits reduced. Possibly even having reduced speed limits at 9 am and 3 pm around schools.