Police ignore High Court judge.

[Xman]

Thats it, I was wondering what else cops enforce.

1. Speeding
2. Drink driving
3. Unlawful use or possesion of a firearm

Everything else just seems too hard.

Other laws are enforced. I suggest that you do a scope ride along shift in Auckland or any other busy center if you believe otherwise.

**Rant removed after thinking better of it.**

[Xman]

...snip...why couldn't drivers who pass certain advanced driving skills tests be allowed to travel at some increased speed on the roads. I would suggest that those skills tests should be the required tests for the basic licence but that's another discussion on it's own. We already identify drivers with lesser skills/experiance who are restricted to less than 100 kmh, so why not identify by a similar method those that are deemed capable of travelling at a greater speed?

Whilst I think you have a fair point, the enforcement of this is not as simple as you seem to indicate. For starters, in a practical sense, how many of those people on restricted or learner licenses get pulled over for speeding at less than the standard limit for whereever they are at the time? I would suggest very few. It is more that they are treated differently if stopped above the standard limit and found to be exceeding their lesser limit by a greater margin. Selectively avoiding pulling over vehicles that have some tag is a much more tricky prospect.
Also, its not like you can instantaniously change the threshold of the speed cameras when someone with their *Fast Driver* card attached passes by.
Lastly, it is unfortunate, but like it or not it is the combined speed that affects outcome in a vehicle collision. Whether the suitably higher qualified driver is at fault or not, in a collision with another vehicle (especially head on) their higher speed will affect the survivability or injuries likely to be sustained in that crash.

[swbarnett]

These roads could have a variable speed limit (50 at peak and as much as 80 offpeak) but that would be a pain to implement and enforce

They do this now with school zones. I don't see why this can't be extrapolated. Except for cost of course.

[swbarnett]

Substitute 100kph for 55mph and 120kph for 100kph and it's the same bleating we hear today.

BTW: 55mph is 88kph....for those too young to remember.

As vehicle handling improves the safe speed for a given type of vehicle on a given piece of road will increase.

I wouldn't like to try a model T at 100kph.

[swbarnett]

Also, its not like you can instantaniously change the threshold of the speed cameras when someone with their *Fast Driver* card attached passes by.

Actually you can. This would be quite simple with the addition of RFIDs (Radio Frequency ID tags) to your driver's license. This would be essentially the same technology used to charge road tolls.

[jaykay]

Me again, been absent for a few days - but it seems this topic has drifted off thread a little.

I don't see why the enforcing authorities shouldn't also have to "follow the law" - a friend has just received what is supposed to be a Reminder Notice about a parking ticket in Auckland (lives here in Christchurch). I say supposed because there are three different dates given for when the payment is due - which one is he supposed to adhere to?

The ticket says it was sent AND served on 22nd August; says it's due 28 days after date of service, (supposed to be 29th August) giving 26th September; when in fact it was served (ie received) on 1st September. Various dates are therefore 19th Sep, 26th Sep, and 28th Sep. In addition the back of the notice, just like the Police one, says he must write within 28 days after service - again, which date is correct? and no mention of it having to be received within 28 days.

Apologies to those ratepayers in Auckland, but I can feel some fun coming on.

To pick up on the orginal topic and the "six month" law. As some of you may have noticed NZ First can't be prosecuted as any iffy donations are more than six months ago. The same is true for motoring offences - the court can only send a Notice of Fine when a Reminder Notice is filed in the court within six months of the alleged offence. (A Notice of Hearing also has to be dated within six months).

Another friend has an offence date of November 2007. A Reminder Notice dated July 2008, and a Notice of Fine dated August 2008. The court appear to have acted outside the law. It will probably be a week or two until there is more news about this, I'll get back here when I can - must go and get some proper work done.

[scumdog]

Since you brought it up though, why couldn't drivers who pass certain advanced driving skills tests be allowed to travel at some increased speed on the roads. I would suggest that those skills tests should be the required tests for the basic licence but that's another discussion on it's own. We already identify drivers with lesser skills/experiance who are restricted to less than 100 kmh, so why not identify by a similar method those that are deemed capable of travelling at a greater speed?

This is a troll....right?

How the effingjeezhell would you identify the suitable driver -and how the hell would you 'police' such a system??

BTW: We only have 'L' motorcyclists who have a lower top speed due to their licence status - about 1.13% or less of road traffic.

[Patrick]

Just further evidence it's nothing to do with road safety but revenue collection.

Note the last word in my post.... Some fines are being reduced with demerits added. Red lights might be one of them. What say you then? Revenue collecting? Pffftttt.....

How about waiting until an accident occurs and then punishing the causative driver, whatever the cause?

High visibility patrolling and ticketing should reduce the crappy driving, one would think. It doesn't...

Since you brought it up though, why couldn't drivers who pass certain advanced driving skills tests be allowed to travel at some increased speed on the roads.

Coz these so called good drivers would still be sharing the roads with crap drivers..... who still won't see ya....

So would I. However, simply issuing tickets for exceeding the arbitrary posted speed limit does not do this. Some people are unsafe at any speed. What is really needed is better driver training and weeding out the incompetents. We always hear "it's a priviledge to have a license" so it's about time that was actually the case. Right now any fucktard can get one by performing a few simple tests. We need to raise the bar. A lot.

Fair call. Been said many a time too. It appears to be in the too hard basket.

..... Like the one that stopped my mate for going through a stop sign without completely stopping - my mate slowed to below 5kph,...

Many people down play ther wrong doings. Could this be another example? Two sides to the story?

To pick up on the orginal topic and the "six month" law. As some of you may have noticed NZ First can't be prosecuted as any iffy donations are more than six months ago.

Depends on what they are looking for and thinking of charging him with. Crimes Act stuff as no statute of limitations for a number of things.

[Slyer]

This is a troll....right?

How the effingjeezhell would you identify the suitable driver -and how the hell would you 'police' such a system??

BTW: We only have 'L' motorcyclists who have a lower top speed due to their licence status - about 1.13% or less of road traffic.

What about trucks and cars with trailers?

[scumdog]

What about trucks and cars with trailers?

Oh yeah, forgot about them, they're so hard to tell apart from the other vehicles eh??

[scumdog]

Just further evidence it's nothing to do with road safety but revenue collection.

And as luck would have it there's a shitload of incompetents who are quite willing to subsidise my non-payment of revenue...

[bomma]

Oh, i live a lot, in fact it makes your wee list seem rather boring, it wasnt personal, i just think when you fuck it up, wether its speeding, or banging into someones car in a car park, you come clean & take it on the chin & dont dissapear & be a burden on your fellow taxpayer or insurance payer, otherwise you become a weasal.

i cudnt be arsed going through 6 pages but

i agree you shouldnt screw over another HUMAN BEING, hit someone's car at a carpark?? leave your number and own up

get a speeding fine by a cop who's been sitting on the off-ramp and only thing on his mind has been quotas, and do as much as you can to avoid that fine. my family and myself pay the government more than enough through taxes so they can squander the money on useless bastards skiving off welfare and crappy endeavours that have little benefit to the majority of the population.....i dont condone speeding IN THE CITY but everyone needs their fix, just try not to get caught

onya for pointing out this little loop hole. i will be saving a copy of it and will let all my mates know

[speedpro]

Note the last word in my post.... Some fines are being reduced with demerits added. Red lights might be one of them. What say you then? Revenue collecting? Pffftttt.....

Coz these so called good drivers would still be sharing the roads with crap drivers..... who still won't see ya....

So the $ fines for "speeding" offences are being reduced and demerits added? I would have thought I would have noticed the news article about that.

So are you implying that by driving at some mandated lesser speed than what I and others are advocating we will be less invisible? The last paragraph quoted above tells me that you know what the problem is - "crap drivers". It doesn't matter the speed. A crap driver is a crap driver and is more likely to cause mayhem whether they are travelling at the legal limit or not.

I have never seen any statistics analysed that showed speed to be a major contributor to crashes, unless the analysis was done by the LTSA or similar with a politically inspired barrow to push. Said analysis was typically seriously flawed, with the desired result. There is no doubt and no argument that in the event of a crash that speed is a major factor in the seriousness. What is always conveniantly ignored in statistical analysis of crash data over the years versus any causes of trends, is that there have been major road works on the main highways. Whole sections of difficult roads have been by-passed, median barriers such as cheese cutters have been installed, the age of the vehicle fleet has reduced with all sorts of safety improvements, all of which has contributed to a decline in the worst statistics. I wonder though if the actual number of crashes per vehicle distance travelled has decreased which to me is a true indicator of whether the "CAUSE" of the crashes is being addressed. I think not.

[MarkH]

Many people down play ther wrong doings. Could this be another example? Two sides to the story?

I was sitting in the passenger seat beside my mate, you can believe my account, or not - whatever.

T-intersection - we can turn left or right. Approach intersection in the left lane, indicating to turn left, my mate slows down to almost a stop. The only traffic that we could possibly have to give way to is the traffic driving straight through from the right - at the slow speed we are doing it is clear that the road is empty, no cars or bikes coming. My mate proceeds through the intersection and a police officer pulls us over and explains that we did not completely stop at the stop sign. There was no suggestion of anything dangerous, only the technicality of the regulations which say you must come to a complete stop.

Could you really be trying to suggest that you are dubious that a cop might be a jerk and try ticketing someone that is driving safely, but infringes on a small technicality? Are you happy to believe that jerks occur in all walks of life, except in the police force?

[Max Preload]

Fair call. Been said many a time too. It appears to be in the too hard basket.

Or perhaps the "would lose too many votes" basket...