NZ Police public image

[Ixion]

..
My biggest issue though, is with roadside licence suspension. This is really giving the Police the power of summary punishment without trial. If the driving is dangerous enough to warrant this it should be dealt with by arrest. What happens if you're suspended and subsequently aquitted of the charge? Do you get your 28 days back? Or do you get a credit for next time?
If anyone doubts that it happens. It actually did happened to several drivers when the cops set up a speed trap at an illegal 30 km'h roadworks restriction on the Waipu straights in 2003.

I also have very grave reservations about this. If you cop a fine that you think is unjust you can take it to court and defend it . Probably cost you more than the fine, but at least you don't have to pay up until you're found guilty.
But roadside suspension, and impoundment, the damage is done. By the time a court finds that you are actually not guilty, it's too late. And at least one of the guys caught in that illegal speed trap lost his job as a result. Once the courts determined that he had actually committed no offence, it was too late. The damage was done.

[spudchucka]

Roadside licence suspension only applies to very serious offences. Your licence will be suspended for 28 days if you:

* are caught drink-driving at more than double the legal alcohol limit

* are caught speeding at more than 50 km/h above any applicable speed limit (does not apply to speed camera offences)

* fail or refuse to supply a blood sample to be tested for excess blood alcohol.

The fact that parliament passed laws that allow this to happen show that the intent is to take the most dangerous drivers off the roads as quickly as possible. This is in the interest of all law abiding road users.

Talk to people about what deters them from speeding and or drink driving and it is usually the potential loss of their licence that is the strongest deterant, not huge over the top fines. Therefore roadside suspension sends a strong message to drivers that may otherwise be willing to take risks that will undoubtedly endanger other road users.

Targeting temporary 30kph zones stinks a little of revenue gathering and quota filling but as long as the temporay zone has been set up legally I have no problem with targeting idiots that zap through these zones at 90 - 100+ kph. Their actions are dangerous and they deserve to be heavily penalised.

[Funkyfly]

Some of the examples given here of traffic stops, if true, are appalling and point to real issues with recruitment and training. The bottom line for the cop should always be "if in doubt, don't write a live ticket".
My biggest issue though, is with roadside licence suspension. This is really giving the Police the power of summary punishment without trial. If the driving is dangerous enough to warrant this it should be dealt with by arrest. What happens if you're suspended and subsequently aquitted of the charge? Do you get your 28 days back? Or do you get a credit for next time?
If anyone doubts that it happens. It actually did happened to several drivers when the cops set up a speed trap at an illegal 30 km'h roadworks restriction on the Waipu straights in 2003.

Its certainly a bit of a worry, but thats a LAW issue not an attitude issue, i guess to quote a cop Lou you "just roll over and take it where it hurts the least."

Or get a GSXR and out run the suckers. LOL.

[Ixion]

Roadside licence suspension only applies to very serious offences. ..
* are caught speeding at more than 50 km/h above any applicable speed limit (does not apply to speed camera offences)
..
The fact that parliament passed laws that allow this to happen show that the intent is to take the most dangerous drivers off the roads as quickly as possible. This is in the interest of all law abiding road users.
..
Targeting temporary 30kph zones stinks a little of revenue gathering and quota filling but as long as the temporay zone has been set up legally I have no problem with targeting idiots that zap through these zones at 90 - 100+ kph. Their actions are dangerous and they deserve to be heavily penalised.

The intentions of Parliament are obvious, and probably laudable. But an example of where intentions and reality can part company is in the example that Mr Giradin instances. I cannot clearly remember all the details now but it went something like this :

A road gang doing some work that didn't involve digging up the road (tree trimming or something like that ?) had been given permission to set up a 30kph resriction while they were working. Fair enough, no-one wants someone clipping past their arse (sorry Mr Hitcher, I meant ass) at 100kph. When they went home at night the restriction ended, and they were supposed to remove the signs. (No need for the restriction because nothing happening)

They didn't remove them (probably seemed a lot of bother , just have to put them back tomorrow morning). The cops set up a speed trap. Now, apart from the signs, there was nothing to indicate any need to slow down. And there was some doubt about the visibility of the signs - which should not have been there anyway.

This was in a 100kph area. So motorists came along doing the "normal" (and legal) 100kph speed of 80 - 100kph. Didn't see the sign or saw it, looked around, said "what the hell, must have just forgotten to take in the sign" and proceeded on.

To be stopped , and ticketed for doing for than 50kph above the (30kph) limit. And instant suspension. And loss of job.

No danger here - indeed no actual offence (since the restriction didn't legally apply). Was that parliament's intention. I doubt it. But it's what happened. And nothing, nothing at all, could undo the damage for the guy(s) that lost his job as a result.

[denill]

Roadside licence suspension only applies to very serious offences. Your licence will be suspended for 28 days if you:

* are caught drink-driving at more than double the legal alcohol limit

* are caught speeding at more than 50 km/h above any applicable speed limit (does not apply to speed camera offences)

* fail or refuse to supply a blood sample to be tested for excess blood alcohol.

Yeah, apart from the "speeding at more than 50 km/h above any applicable speed limit" piece of crap - they are serious offences.

But the cop then becomes not only the cop - but judge and jury......... On the side of the road??

Not good...... Specially if the cop happens to be an arsehole.

But don't blame the police force - that is our politicians f*** up.

Cheers
Bill

[Lou Girardin]

Roadside licence suspension only applies to very serious offences. Your licence will be suspended for 28 days if you:

* are caught drink-driving at more than double the legal alcohol limit

* are caught speeding at more than 50 km/h above any applicable speed limit (does not apply to speed camera offences)

* fail or refuse to supply a blood sample to be tested for excess blood alcohol.

The fact that parliament passed laws that allow this to happen show that the intent is to take the most dangerous drivers off the roads as quickly as possible. This is in the interest of all law abiding road users.

Talk to people about what deters them from speeding and or drink driving and it is usually the potential loss of their licence that is the strongest deterant, not huge over the top fines. Therefore roadside suspension sends a strong message to drivers that may otherwise be willing to take risks that will undoubtedly endanger other road users.

Targeting temporary 30kph zones stinks a little of revenue gathering and quota filling but as long as the temporay zone has been set up legally I have no problem with targeting idiots that zap through these zones at 90 - 100+ kph. Their actions are dangerous and they deserve to be heavily penalised.

This still doesn't address the question of cop justice, which is completely contrary to the Westminster system of justice.
As I said, if the offence is that serious, arrest them, you have the power and always have had. The truth is that on many of these 50 plus over the limit offences, you guys would not get home on a dangerous charge.
BTW 81 k's in a temp 30 costs you your licence and with the proliferation of temp speed zones where there is no actual work being done, or loose chip or any other valid reason this is becoming a major problem. I know for certain that I'm reluctant to slow for a 30 temp when I'm at 100 k's with someone right on my tail. It's just asking for a Liberace.

[spudchucka]

This still doesn't address the question of cop justice, which is completely contrary to the Westminster system of justice.
As I said, if the offence is that serious, arrest them, you have the power and always have had. The truth is that on many of these 50 plus over the limit offences, you guys would not get home on a dangerous charge.
BTW 81 k's in a temp 30 costs you your licence and with the proliferation of temp speed zones where there is no actual work being done, or loose chip or any other valid reason this is becoming a major problem. I know for certain that I'm reluctant to slow for a 30 temp when I'm at 100 k's with someone right on my tail. It's just asking for a Liberace.

I don't always slow to 30kph either when there is no actual road workers present or if it is late at night. However I always make sure my speed is very well below licence snatching levels.

The Westminster system is the base of our justice system but does that mean we can't vary things to suit our own situation? The powers that be deem that excessive speed is a danger to other legitimate road users and +50kph is the level at which they have said "thats enough".

Perhaps we should arrest all speeders and take them straight before the nearest Court or JP, (if it happened outside Court hours) and let them decide the penalty on the spot.

[spudchucka]

Not good...... Specially if the cop happens to be an arsehole.

If the offence happened, what difference does it make whether the cop is an arsehole or not? The outcome is the same regardless.

[spudchucka]

This was in a 100kph area. So motorists came along doing the "normal" (and legal) 100kph speed of 80 - 100kph. Didn't see the sign or saw it, looked around, said "what the hell, must have just forgotten to take in the sign" and proceeded on.

Did the cops act in good faith, believing that the temporay speed zone was a legitimate one or did they act malitiously knowing that the tempoary zone was dodgy? I don't think anyone here can answer that.

The drivers still have to take some responsibility as there were 30kph signs in place and they failed to comply with those signs. Would it not have been prudent of the driver to slow down just in case there was an actual reason for the signs to be there in the first place? To assume that they are misplaced signs would be extremely foolish.

[Clockwork]

Maybe the suspension should be deferable for 24/48 hours and/or contestable. And maybe it could be taken into consideration at any subsequent court imposed sanction otherwise the offender is being punished twice for the same offence...... and lets not forget, our esteemed leaders are currently considering lowering the 50kph threshold to 40kph!!

BTW doesn't "sustained loss of traction" lead to automatic vehicle impounding?

[denill]

If the offence happened, what difference does it make whether the cop is an arsehole or not? The outcome is the same regardless.

You guys really are in denial............ You continue to defend the indefensible.....

You deliberately or undeliberately missed my point when I said - "But the cop then becomes not only the cop - but judge and jury......... On the side of the road??

Not good...... Specially if the cop happens to be an arsehole."

The point is surely obvious and on it's own causes concern how any poly not in the Third Reich could table it??
The point - If the cop is an arsehole he is likely to nail you 'cos he doen't like you!!!!!!

Now go on, say - "that would never happen".

[denill]

If the offence happened, what difference does it make whether the cop is an arsehole or not? The outcome is the same regardless.

In case you still miss my point.

If the cop happens to be an arsehole with attitude - you know the sort of cop. "If the offence happened" or not can very conceivably make no difference. That is the point!!!!!

Call that justice??

I don't. Unless you are in Bali. There they stop Tourists and just ask for money. Don't have to have done anything wrong. Yeah it happens all the time. Don't laugh, NZ is not too far behind.....

[Lou Girardin]

The Westminster system is the base of our justice system but does that mean we can't vary things to suit our own situation? The powers that be deem that excessive speed is a danger to other legitimate road users and +50kph is the level at which they have said "thats enough".

No you can't. That system was developed based on precepts set down in the Magna Carta. Change simple concepts like innocent until PROVEN guilty and you negate the entire system. (That's proven in a court of law, not some cops mind)
Something that seems to have escaped to micro second attention spans of our population.

[Lou Girardin]

Did the cops act in good faith, believing that the temporay speed zone was a legitimate one or did they act malitiously knowing that the tempoary zone was dodgy? I don't think anyone here can answer that.

Did they even check? We always had to ensure the legality of temp zones on the M/way BEFORE we enforced them. But then we were just snakes.

[Ixion]

Did the cops act in good faith, believing that the temporay speed zone was a legitimate one or did they act malitiously knowing that the tempoary zone was dodgy? I don't think anyone here can answer that.

The drivers still have to take some responsibility as there were 30kph signs in place and they failed to comply with those signs. Would it not have been prudent of the driver to slow down just in case there was an actual reason for the signs to be there in the first place? To assume that they are misplaced signs would be extremely foolish.

I'm assuming that the cops were acting in good faith. My point was really toward the draconian nature of the instant suspension law, because there is no way to reverse it. The guys who slowed down from 100 to 70 copped a fine. But they got it back once it was realised that the speed trap was actually "illegal". But the guys who slowed from 100 to 81 lost their license and jobs. Even once the error was realised the penalty could not be reversed. So despite being innocent they were still punished.

I agree that a wise person would slow down - as the vast majority did (though there was some argument about the signage, apparently it wasn't the clearest) . But I think most folk would do a I would, slow from 100 to 60 or 70 maybe look round , think "hm whats going on" push on a little further being ready to slow right down if necessary. Then figure "nothings happening, no road works, what goes on" . Letting speed slip back up to 80kph (still under the open road limit) doesn't seem unduly irresponsible.

Incidentally has anyone else noticed the tendency for there to be road works temporary limit signs at the beginning of the road works. But no "terminator" when you can go back to normal speed. I've seen this quite a bit lately - latest was on the Southern Motorway last night.