NZ Police public image

[inlinefour]

Oh yea and if I called him an arsehole, would I be wrong?

As he has not yet given us any reason to believe otherwise...

[WINJA]

I'd respect the rank and file cops a lot more if they publicly disagreed with current policies. Just like several UK Police Associations have done. The fact that they don't seems to indicate that they agree with them.

IN THE LATE 90'S I WAS GIVEN A CHOICE BY MY EMPLOYER, COMPLY WITH AN IMMORAL REQUEST OR FACE DISMISSAL, I CHOSE DISMISSAL. PEOPLE HAVE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS, WE ALL KNOW THE POLICE ARE REVENUE GATHERING YET THE GUY ON THE COAL FACE CONTINUES TO DO ROAD SIDE TAX COLLECTORS,ITS UP TO THESE INDIVIDUALS TO SAY FUCK THE BOSS ILL DO WHATS RIGHT. IF SPEEDING WAS THAT SERIOUS HELEN CLARK WOULD NOT HAVE PERMITTED HER DRIVER TO SPEED, AND THE POLICE WOULD HAVE A LIMITED PURSUIT POLICY.
I COULD BE WRONG ABOUT THIS BUT IN AUSTRALIA NT WAS THE ONLY STATE WITHOUT FATALITIES DURING EASTER AND THEY ARE THE ONLY STATE WITH NO SPEED LIMIT(CORRECT ME IF IM WRONG)

[Ixion]

As he has not yet given us any reason to believe otherwise...

See the post immediately below perhaps ? Strident, yes, but principled also.

[WINJA]

Like me for instance?

its good being able to be someone else sometimes so you can be ruder than you normally are or whatever.

OR TYPE IN CAPITALS AND PRETENT THERES SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOUR EYES, AYE WINJA?
THE ONLY THING WRONG WITH WINJAS EYES IS BLINDNESS CAUSED BY TOO MUCH MONKEY SPANKING, SAME WITH HIS HAIRY PALMS.

THIS IS ALL TRUE, EXCEPT YOU FORGOT THE PART ABOUT YOUR MUM BEING A $2 WHORE WHO GIVES HANDJOBS FOR CIGARETTES

[MikeL]

Ixion, I find myself agreeing with pretty much everything you have written: your analysis will be very hard to refute.

And MR WINJA, we all have an axe to grind: it's the way we go about it that determines whether we will derive any more benefit from airing our views than the short-lived satisfaction of scoring a cheap shot through scurrilous personal invective.

[spudchucka]

And since the traffic operations do indeed generate a big net profit, LTSA/Local bodies etc have no difficulty getting central government to fund more of it. Which in turns means that central governemnt screws down the amount that it funds direct to the police, since it can (truthfully) claim that police funding has (overall) increased. Unfortunately catching burglars doesn't generate any revenue to justify more resources

Just out of interest how do you see the ACC funded Booze Bus police operations fitting within this framework of funding and revenue collection?

These units account for a reasonable chunk of police resources. There core business is to target drink drivers. Every drink driver that gives a positive result ends up in the court system. Some plead guilty very early, others drag the process out and end up costing the justice system $$$$. There are no instant fines for drink driving to flush up the Govt coffers.

Are these units about revenue gathering or are they about road safety?

By the way I'm not trying to crap on your arguements, I'm just interested in what people think of this part of police work.

[RDJ]

I'll stick my neck out Spud :-)

Drivers who drink are operating heavy and dangerous machinery while heavily impaired and are ipso facto dangerous to other road users and pedestrians - they cannot react properly to either expected or unexpected changes in the environment. Keeping these drivers off the road saves hospital and health care budget money as well as doing the job we need the police to do - keeping us safe.

Drivers who speed are operating heavy and dangerous machinery faster than an arbitrary limit - which may or not be dangerous. A queue of 10 cars spaced by the two-second rule along the Desert Road on a clear day doing 110 km/hr is not necessarily more dangerous than if they all did 100 k - and certainly less dangerous than 9 cars doing 100 and 1 car doing 75... Ticketing the queue has a different imperative behind it.

IMO
My 2 rubles worth
YMMV
and other disclaimers...

[spudchucka]

I take your points as they are valid. The blanket speed limit is not always appropriate, sometimes it should be higher, other times it should be lower.

I didn't wan't a drink driving versus speed enforcement versus criminal enforcement type analysis though.

What I'd like to know is simply whether people think that targeting drink drivers and funding resources specifically for that purpose is motivated, (from a police & Govt point of view), primarily as a revenue gathering exercise or as a legitimate road safety strategy?

[Jantar]

I take your points as they are valid. The blanket speed limit is not always appropriate, sometimes it should be higher, other times it should be lower.

I didn't wan't a drink driving versus speed enforcement versus criminal enforcement type analysis though.

What I'd like to know is simply whether people think that targeting drink drivers and funding resources specifically for that purpose is motivated, (from a police & Govt point of view), primarily as a revenue gathering exercise or as a legitimate road safety strategy?

I do agree with stopping drunk drivers, but not with targetting them. Its also a bit like with the speeding issue, I disagree with an abitrary limit. Some people have a much higher tolerance to alcohol than others, and I fail to see that some who is 1 point over the limit is 6 months disqualification more dangerous than someone who is 1 point under the limit. I realise that there is no instant fine for being over the limit, but the fine does still go to the government, and is therefore another form of revenue collecting.

Perhaps the government need to remember that ALL accidents have at least one, and usually more, primary causes. Driving while slightly over the legal limit, or exceeding the speed limit by a small amount while otherwise driving safely is almost never a primary cause. Failing to give way, failing to keep left, dangerous overtaking etc are primary causes, and these are the ones that should be hit the hardest.

[250learna]

wow now this is one crazy thread! Everyone is fireing up and hostile. I dont want to get involved but i will laydown my experiances with the law.
@I had one ticket ever... rolling over a stop sign (maybe 5 or 10kph) in a pitch black street with no cars or people around (except the cop hiding in the dark down the street) $150
@i have been rear ended on the motorway by a car at 110kph on motorway because i beeped at him when he fell asleep at the lights - went in and layd a complaint... told that have to go to court and can go either way, i said i want to press on and they advised me not to!!!!!!! i said i will anyways and was told they will press on and get back to me, never herd from them again!!!
@have had some big maori guy drive right up my arse and then drive next to me trying to push me to the wrog lane of the motorway with his ss comodore because i was not going fast enough for him, than he overtook and slamed his breaks - another complaint at the police station was told he is not supose to even be on the road, i asked for follow up and to be kept updated on situation, they assured me they would - never herd from them again!!!!

Seems to me that the only thing that they are interested in is the quota, while serious trouble is there they are all trying to give speeding tickets on SH1 where a bit of speed in a straight line is not realy dangerous. Try focusing on windy roads where te dangers realy is, not a straight streatch of road.
Saying that a few times i have had good experience with cops giving a helping hand...
and also have to say that wellington water cops are cool... gave me and some m8s a lift bak after the motor on the boat craped out by somes island, and saved us from some 2 hours worth of rowing
It comes down to the individual cop and i personaly think that cops should not only focus on the speeding done by your average joe at 115kph, theres planty of other "serious" crime that they can spend their time on

And yes if a cop was in trouble and i felt that i could make a difference to the outcome and not just get my arse kicked i would do my best to assist just like i would to any of you.

[RDJ]

What I'd like to know is simply whether people think that targeting drink drivers and funding resources specifically for that purpose is motivated primarily as a revenue gathering exercise or as a legitimate road safety strategy?

IMO this is a legitimate safety strategy. The same way WOFs are. Compared to registering vehicles and petrol taxes which are (almost) purely for revenue generation.

Regards

[Ixion]

Just out of interest how do you see the ACC funded Booze Bus police operations fitting within this framework of funding and revenue collection?

These units account for a reasonable chunk of police resources. There core business is to target drink drivers.
Are these units about revenue gathering or are they about road safety?

By the way I'm not trying to crap on your arguements, I'm just interested in what people think of this part of police work.

First thing is whether the ACC demand a pound of flesh from the police in exchange for the funding.

In a sense the drink driving operations are revenue positive for the ACC because reducing drink driving saves them money. That's good for everybody provided that they're not using their funding as a lever to influence priorities. Which I believe does happen with the LTSA.

I don't think anyone is silly enough to believe that even the HP say "Yippie another guy going X kph. Thats another $400 I've earned". But the public do perceive that the revenue earned by fines cycles back, through central government into the LTSA and then sways resource prioritisation decisions. Since there's no direct revenue from drink policing I would think the public sentiment would not be so opposed.

But, I recall a few years ago there was a period when the police were doing a lot of breath testing at peak hours. The percentage of positives was minute, the public were annoyed, and even more annoyed when the police said that they had to do it because they were contracted to (I think) ACC to test so many drivers per month. The was a bit of a stink about that. It is the same sort of thing, people feel that the police should allocate their time based on the seriousness of crimes reported , not because they have a contract with some third party.

What concerns me about (eg) the LTSA is that the funds come with conditions. If the ACC say "Well, keeping drink drivers off the road saves us paying out in ACC claims. We know you (the police) want that too. Here's some buses and some money to run them, no strings attached " then that's all good by me. What I don't like about the LTSA (and probably other) funding is the strings that appear to come with it. As someone earlier said "no hours, no funding" . That means that strategic decisions at headquarters level get slanted by the need to support the funding. I don't know if that's the case with the ACC or not.

In essence I'm asking if the Police are calling the shots (" We , the police, have decided to have X coppers focused on drink driving. Will the ACC help fund that cost of that . You will, oh good") Or does the ACC call the shots (" We , the ACC , want to see Y hours of targeted drink drive enforcement . We will pay Z dollars for that. But you can't use the hours paid for by us for other police purposes"). This is bad, because central government adds the amounts paid by LTSA, ACC into the budget, so that it reduces in effect the amount of "strings free" funding available to the police. And it is that strings free funding that pays for most of the traditional copper functions. Hence we have the Minister saying that the police funding is higher than ever before, and the police saying that they don't have the resources to deal with burglary and such like.

Its a nice deal for the government. They can reduce the amount they pay directly because of all the other people paying. And although the government still indirectly pays that, it recovers it all and more through the revenue generated . (The revenue from instant fines and speed cameras *is* set as a credit in the LTSA vote)

Ideally I'd prefer to see the LTSA, the ACC and all the rest of them just put the money into a big pot and the pot given to the police to divide up as they see fit. Or even simpler, instead of the government taking it off the taxpayer, giving it to the LTSA/ACC and the latter giving it back to the police, why not have the government give it directly to the police in the first place. And have them decide how much for booze buses, how much for general duties etc.

[Lou Girardin]

If it's not about revenue, perhaps the police should stop budgeting for fines revenue in the following financial year.

[Pixie]

[QUOTE=Ixion]First thing is whether the ACC demand a pound of flesh from the police in exchange for the funding.

QUOTE]
Govt. says to LTNZ:reduce road toll (it gets votes)

LTNZ buys time from the police for enforcement.

Police set minimum value of fines to match money from LTNZ.

Police admin get on the back of frontline cops to meet tickets per cop quota.

LTNZ wants evidence of value for money from police.

Police wave wad of money at LTNZ and say:Look $40 million in fines.

LTNZ pats Rob Robinson on the head and says"good boy your' boys can have another $40 million for next year.

Govt. says "Good boy,Rob;you can keep your $400K job for another year.

Everybody's happy,get pissed and have a party!

[MikeL]

I don't think I ever got a satisfactory answer to the question I posed some time ago:
"Why do we need an LTSA?" (or LTNZ or whatever acronym is current - it will no doubt change again before long)
Can anyone show convincingly that the LTNZ is more effective and more efficient than the old government departments which used to have its responsibilities?

(Just as I need convincing that NZQA has materially improved the state of education in this country...)