No ticket quota for police? Read this...

[The Stranger:Me]

Well, you only get a fine because you broke the law. Simple.

Simple?
If the law is an ass, should it be blindly followed?


If those responsible for creating the laws openly flout or show disdain for the laws they create should they really expect anything but disobediance from the rest of us?
Example include the MP with 5 drink driving charges, a certain dope smoking MP, an MP who introduces a party hopping law then hops party, forgeries etc - not to mention Winstons latest debacle.

[Conquiztador]

Quota's have always been denied but we all know they exist in some way or another.If & when the police introduce prizes for the most tickets issued then we will have a reason to complain.

And you have it from where that this is not happening???

[vinnieh]

I don't really like the idea of quotas because well I just feel that it would encourage cops to sit in areas where people will be likely speeding (but not by much) such as when a speed limit changes from 100 to 50 or something. And places where the speed limit seems impossible slow. Like River Road in Hamilton. That road was originally going to be 60km/h until some residents got it brought down to 50km/h to cut down on noise levels. Fair enough but the amount of people I have seen pulled up on that road is ridiculous, cause everyone does like 65 there.

[niero]

Well, in the end if police have a quota to fulfill they will start handing out tickets like there is no tommorow. If they lets say are running behind in their ticket gathering, it means that they will try to punish rather than reinforce the law. Here is an example, A friend of mine here had his indicator bulb blown while he was driving, BANG, here goes a cop, and a fine with him... I would have thought that anyone would have understood, but not that cop, I bet he had his own job to worry about.

[R6_kid:Me]

If the quota was set that they had to stop that many people, and ticket where appropriate then I think there would be a lot less people complaining.

i.e - doing 120kmh steady on an empty motorway late at night is not as dangerous as doing 120kmh through a busy motorway, cutting off other people etc.

With the first person it would be sufficient to put the blue and reds on, pull them over, and tell them to watch their speed. The second person is much more likely to cause harm to themselves, or more importantly others, and would be inline for a ticket.

I was lead to believe that officers are allowed to use their 'good judgement' about when to issue tickets, but it seems that far to often that they are too keen to reach for the book and issue a ticket.

Tickets should be handed out based on the immediate danger posed by the action/offence commited, not on the basis of "fuck me, i'm a few tickets behind today, better give this guy a ticket"

[MSTRS:Me]

Tickets should be handed out based on the immediate danger posed by the action/offence commited, not on the basis of "fuck me, i'm a few tickets behind today, better give this guy a ticket"

That's it in a nutshell...

[igor]

The cops have quotas?

BFD, who gives a shit, what does it matter.....

I really don't like your attitude. You should give a shit.

and when I did traffic, we never had a quota . YOU COULD GIVE OUT AS MANY TICKETS AS YOUR WANTED, THERE WAS NO MAXIMUM.

The great thing was there was so many duffuses breaking the law it was like fishing at Fairy Springs in Rotorua.

Its like people who don't wear seatbelts. They always had a bad attitude. I told them, I don't really care if they die, whats another body to pick up and put in a bag, but what did upset me was having to tell there Mum or Wife and then listening to them blubbering evry time I spoke to them. This comment seemed to change their bad attitude very quickly.

I remember this one lady I told, The crying started off as a low blubber and got louder and louder, shit it was a horrible noise. If it was a dog ya would of put it out of its misery.

[unrealone]

If the quota was set that they had to stop that many people, and ticket where appropriate then I think there would be a lot less people complaining.

i.e - doing 120kmh steady on an empty motorway late at night is not as dangerous as doing 120kmh through a busy motorway, cutting off other people etc.

With the first person it would be sufficient to put the blue and reds on, pull them over, and tell them to watch their speed. The second person is much more likely to cause harm to themselves, or more importantly others, and would be inline for a ticket.

I was lead to believe that officers are allowed to use their 'good judgement' about when to issue tickets, but it seems that far to often that they are too keen to reach for the book and issue a ticket.

Tickets should be handed out based on the immediate danger posed by the action/offence commited, not on the basis of "fuck me, i'm a few tickets behind today, better give this guy a ticket"

Agree with that.

So, maybe their quota's should be based on: "Vehicles pulled over". That way, they still ensure naughty people are dealt to but theres not so much pressure on, 'gotta give em a ticket for something'....

I'd elaborate more... but i just polished the car and im damn nackered!

[MSTRS:Me]

I really don't like your attitude. You should give a shit.

Why? SD is good people. He hasn't soaked up the 'attitude'.

and when I did traffic, we never had a quota . YOU COULD GIVE OUT AS MANY TICKETS AS YOUR WANTED, THERE WAS NO MAXIMUM.

We don't give a toss about 'maximums'...it's the minimum that we object to. Quota - Expectation - Instruction...whatever the word given to it, it is a MINIMUM figure that is in place. That is not good policing. Might as well have a load of robots out there.

[Ixion]

The concern with a minimum requirement is , what happens if their are not that many offences committed?

For instance, each cop is require dot issue at least 110 seat belt tickets a year. Two every week.

But by my observation, and backed up by statistics, non-wearing of seat belts is quite rare. Surevys in Dorkland show something like 99% of people wear them (that are required to).

So what happens when PC plod gets toward the end of his quota year, and find he has 8 weeks to go and has only issued, say, 60 seat belt tickets. And look around as hard as he may , he can find hardly anyone not wearing their seat belt. And now he gets to 4 weeks out from quota time, and he's only up to 75 of the 110. What's he going to do? Odds are , make up some offences, Stop someone for a genuine offence and throw in "And you weren't wearing your seat belt". "Yes I was." "Prove it. Here's the ticket"

Bet it happens.

Likewise 220 is a high figure for the quite serious charges of careless or dangerous driving. Nearly 5 every week, for every single cop. Maybe explains some of the creative "dangerous driving" charges one hears of.

[igor]

The concern with a minimum requirement is , what happens if their are not that many offences committed?

For instance, each cop is require dot issue at least 110 seat belt tickets a year. Two every week.

But by my observation, and backed up by statistics, non-wearing of seat belts is quite rare. Surevys in Dorkland show something like 99% of people wear them (that are required to).

So what happens when PC plod gets toward the end of his quota year, and find he has 8 weeks to go and has only issued, say, 60 seat belt tickets. And look around as hard as he may , he can find hardly anyone not wearing their seat belt. And now he gets to 4 weeks out from quota time, and he's only up to 75 of the 110. What's he going to do? Odds are , make up some offences, Stop someone for a genuine offence and throw in "And you weren't wearing your seat belt". "Yes I was." "Prove it. Here's the ticket"

Bet it happens.

Likewise 220 is a high figure for the quite serious charges of careless or dangerous driving. Nearly 5 every week, for every single cop. Maybe explains some of the creative "dangerous driving" charges one hears of.

clearly u are in the Marketing department Of Tui or blind or living in some make believe world that you wear rode tinted glasses and cotton wool floats around you.

reality check needed

[MIZXR]

The tickets would be processed ever month in the old days so
SPEED AT THE START OF THE MONTH
It worked well for me so far

[bomma]

also, having a quota means that cops are likely to spend more time reaching these than performing duties that are ACTUALLY beneficial to society. ie, when a bike was nearly stolen on symonds st, we called it in with the rego and description of car and occupants. 30 mins later they were still driving up and down the street, no cops around. turns out there was a cop about 300m down the road covering the off-ramp looking for speeders. or when cops turn up at a robbery scene and say "have you got insurance? coz we aren't going to do anything about it so you should claim as much back as you can"

[pritch]

Example include the MP with 5 drink driving charges, a certain dope smoking MP, an MP who introduces a party hopping law then hops party, forgeries etc - not to mention Winstons latest debacle.

Or the Prime Ministers high speed dash to get to a rugby match. The serfs faced charges but the person in charge did not. Perhaps the word we're looking for is hypocrisy?

The law is the law, but whether or not the law or the enforcement of it is worthy of respect, is another matter entirely.

The lawmakers only observe the law when it suits them, but then as various forums hereabout indicate, so probably do most of us...

[Ixion]

clearly u are in the Marketing department Of Tui or blind or living in some make believe world that you wear rode tinted glasses and cotton wool floats around you.

reality check needed

Government figures. Argue with them if you don't want to believe it.

Northland Police Distrcit, 99% wearing rates.

Auckland Police District , 98%.

And the cop still has to spot the missing 1%