No ticket quota for police? Read this...

**T.I.E** · 13th September 2008, 13:27

if we all behaved then we wouldnt need police.

wish we could all not speed for 6 months then there would so few police on the roads and they would be out there doing what we all think they should be doing.

sounds good in theory.

oh and insurance levis would drop to. another great fact.

yeah i know ill shut up.

**Ixion** · 13th September 2008, 13:32

Originally Posted by T.I.E

if we all behaved then we wouldnt need police.

wish we could all not speed for 6 months then there would so few police on the roads and they would be out there doing what we all think they should be doing.

Not so. The effect of that would be that they would reduce the speed limit.

Whether in fact non dangerous speeding does "need" police is an arguable position. It is like saying that if no one ever over parked we would not "need" parking wardens to give out parking tickets.

**Griffin** · 13th September 2008, 13:33

Well no doubt we will all have our own opinions on this - Like many issues discussed on forums, there will almost never be 100% agreement.

My personal view - dont speed, dont become a part of the 'quota' collection. Pretty simple as far as Im concerned. Sure - sometimes I speed - but I do it with the view that if caught then its my own fault and I am happy to accept that.

Even if there is a quota - it doesnt increrase your chances of getting a ticket if your not breaking the law.

**Coyote** · 13th September 2008, 14:09

Originally Posted by cs363

Sounds like National and Act are a little more realistic regarding where the police should be directing their attentions.

Not really. It's just an issue that they can play on to get the current government kicked out. Once they get into power they are unlikely to change the system very much. Except possibly having fewer policepeople out on the road, reducing operating costs. A good thing really, put they're likely to take it too far and it's already been mentioned on here that we have too few policepeople looking after the community and looking out for criminals.

Originally Posted by R6_kid

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"

A good example: my Weltec tutor was coming home in his Daughter's car. The L Plates had been left on as you've seen so many people do, and it was past the curfew for learner drivers. A cop seeing this as well as only one person behind the wheel pulls him over as they should. Sees that there's a fully licensed driver in the car and the L Plates had been left there accidentally, but still ticketed him. I would've thought any cop with discretion would've said "sorry about that, but please take the plates down in the future so we don't have a repeat of this".

Funny how government has got schools to work in the opposite way. There's almost no such thing as punishment and offenders are allowed to continue on their merry ways

Originally Posted by igor

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

I really can not bare people who attack the person, not the issue. If you disagree with someone, you can say so but back it up. You're just like the school bully that replies "well, you're gay!". And judging by your typing, you probably were.*

*Yes, I realise that's hypocritical.

**Grub** · 13th September 2008, 14:44

I'm afraid that i don't understand all this bleating and whingeing about quotas either. Take step back and think about it for a minute.

- LTSA gets money off your registration fee to reduce the road toll.
- They contract the Police to reduce the road toll and pay them money to do it
- The road toll is caused by the "Fatal Five"; Speeding, Alcohol, Restraints, Dangerous/careless and High-risk driving.
- Police detail their Highway Patrols to target those fatal five areas to stop people killing thmeselves and others.
- How do they know that they're being targetted? They set KPI's on their officers
- KPI stands for Key Performance (NOT revenue) Indicators
- How do you make sure your officers are actually working and not eating "pies" or sunning themselves on the beach? You set individual officers performance targets to make sure they stay focussed on the job that they're paid to do.

People die on the roads, 423 of them last year, by doing one of the 'fatal five'.
- The KPI's are apportioned in the same ratio as the causes of death.
- The cops then just go to the likely places where hundreds of thousands of people are doing those fatal-ready things.
- Those who put themselves and others at risk are then ticketed

It alll seems incredibly sensible to me.

**scumdog** · 13th September 2008, 15:16

Originally Posted by R6_kid

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"

So if the cop has over-stepped his quota it would be OK for him to ignore all but the most dangerous offending eh??

Well SOMEBODY has to help him reach his quota...

**PeteMun** · 13th September 2008, 15:19

Not sure if this has been posted before but its worth a look

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7ZKpX9kWhY

**scumdog** · 13th September 2008, 15:22

Originally Posted by Ixion

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).

You're kidding me, right?

I just mtb'd home from work, one Imperial mile.

15 or less cars went the other way and THREE of them had a seat-belt-less drivers, lordy-knows how many passengers were the same.

**Solo** · 13th September 2008, 15:34

Sure traffic infringements should be fined, but the trouble with quota's is that police are more likely to fill their quota's at well known easy spots (long straight roads where people do 56kpm), rather than the hard to get, but real dangerous drivers.

**Naki Rat** · 13th September 2008, 15:37

Originally Posted by Gubb

Highway Patrol is focused on traffic, as far as i'm aware, they won't be responding to the rape that is happening on the other side of town anyway, and i'm sure as hell that they will attend that fatal accident, even if they are 1 ticket short of their target.

Agreed, BUT The decicision occurs further up the food chain. Traffic offence policing is the easy dollar earner for the Police (read: Government) so where do you think the funding/focus for police activities is going to be directed.

At least the Nat's and ACT are honest enough to acknowledge the existence of a quota mindset

**marty** · 13th September 2008, 15:47

Originally Posted by Conquiztador

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

I used to run a little operation every other Friday. Started at one side of town, had 3 hours to get across the other side, meet at Burger King. I'd buy the winners an icecream. Tickets had to include at least 1 WOF, 1 reg, 1 RUC and 1 unlicenced driver. I had a points scale for severity of offences (like 1 for a WOF, 10 for an EBA, 20 for a stolen car etc)

More often than not, because of some profile targeting, it would end up in at least 1 stolen car with offenders, an EBA or 2, and an arrest for someone on warrant for failing to appear.

We could have just sat around eating donuts I suppose.

One time, a guy who I was processing for EBA was bleating about how I should have been out there catching rapists and kiddy fuckers. Ironically, he had just arrived back in the country after being away for 15 years, having done a runner after being charged with raping and sodomising the kids in his scout group. He had changed his name, however I was suspicious about something, and fingerprinted him. A good day. I bought myself an icecream for that one (sprinkled with 100's & 1000's too....)