The money from tickets doesn't go to the police. Sorry, your theory is a dead duck.Originally Posted by Naki Rat
Forum whore
The money from tickets doesn't go to the police. Sorry, your theory is a dead duck.
stormrider
From the same place that says there are no quota's
bikes and babes are best naked
I found I had a fluffy seam when my crotch got wet.
Comfortably numb
"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"
Reply With QuoteWhat part of the Police collecting money for the government don't you understand
stormrider
But but but .... if you don't speed then you don't get to pay the voluntary taxation levied by the po lice.
I found I had a fluffy seam when my crotch got wet.
salty dog
And slow down at the end......
Agree
Opinions are like arseholes: Everybody has got one, but that doesn't mean you got to air it in public all the time....
Hardcore Biker
and you believe statistics. no one ever jemmied stats, another "Yeah Right" moment. wake up - wake up - reality check
Forum whore
Your argument is defective (you don't work for the Sheeple , by any chance?)
Assuming, for the sake of argument your assertion that the road toll is caused by the "fatal Five" (which is polemic, not science, but lets run with it for the moment).
Most people can identify the two rcommon factors of the crashes that cause deaths. They occur on roads which are dangerous. We all know that there are roads that are "technical". Where most people take it easy (realising it's a dangerous bit of road) ; but some are foolhardy. Where people come to grief. And they involve drivers with inadequate skill levels.
What then would be the most effective way to reduce those crash numbers? Clearly, to station marked cars on the dangerous roads. They would catch (and ticket) some of the foolhardy ones . Who will slow down (one does when there's a cop there!). And many will slow down , seeing the marked cop (or picking up his radar broadcast). And will thus avoid both ticket and pain. Net result, a few tickets written, and many crashes prevented. Bad result. Quota not met. So, the police won't do that. It merely prevents crashes, which is not their purpose.
Instead they will do what we know they do. They will find a suitable bit of road, where a speed somewhat in excess of 100kph is perfectly safe , and where even the prudent driver may be lured over the limit. The ends of passing lanes, and downhill slopes with good road surface and clear visibility are favourite spots. You can name you own . Net result, many tickets written no crashes at all prevented ( because there never are any in that spot anyway). Good result. Quota met. And that's all that counts.
They do not at all "go to the likely places where hundreds of thousands of people are doing those fatal-ready things". They in fact do the exact reverse. They go to the places where people are NOT doing those fatal ready thing, because that is where they will find the easiest quota.
Similarly, cops will routinely ignore atrociously bad driving, simply because it does not come into the "fatal five" category . Yet issue tickets for offence swhere there is no dnager and the offence is merely technical. Because it's quota that counts , not safety.
Perhaps. But , in that case how do you justify hammering speeding. The justification for that policy is based on , wait for it, yep, statistics. And if you say they're wrong - then the speeding policy is also invalid. can't have it both ways. Wake up, Mr Igor. Reality check. The whole of the traffic policing policy you so earnestly defend is based on a myth. You just said so.
Yep. Statistics again. Which of course, like Mr Igor, you can claim to be "jemmied". But in that case, so equally are the statistics that say that non-wearing of seat belts is a significant cause of the road toll. So why are you enforcing it?
Actually, the figure is correct, by personal observation. We're a law abiding lot up here. Can't speak for you Southerners, though
Forum whore
Unfortunately, that theory doesn't work either.But but but .... if you don't speed then you don't get to pay the voluntary taxation levied by the po lice.
There's a good many bikers have ended up paying the "voluntary" taxation, when they weren't speeding.
cos "The noise your bike was making, you must have been speeding". Or :
"My radar picked up SOMEONE speeding. Could have been any of the half dozen vehicles in range. But only one of them is a motorbike. Here's your ticket" Or:
"Mrs Grundy (who is 97) states that a blue and white motorbike passed her doing at least 500 kph. You're riding a blue and white motorbike. That'll do, here's your ticket". Or :
"I hate you bikers. And I'm in a sweepstakes with the other cops to see who can pull the greatest number of motorcycle licences. I don't really know what speed you were doing , but I want to win the sweepstakes. Here's your ticket" (The sweepstakes bit is true BTW). Or :
"I dunno if you were speeding or not cos I didn't get a lock on you. But I'm short of quota , and you can't prove you WEREN'T speeding. here's your ticket".
Weapons of Mass Acceleration
In your opinion it may be an ass, but that is just it - your opinion. Bitter for getting a few tickets huh? Your fault if you did, not the cops.
MP's hardly set a moral standard for us to follow. Poor example.
Would you jump off a cliff just because someone else did it? Just because there are hypocrites liars and cheats out there - it does not mean to say we need to be, just because they are.
Without rules and laws, what do you really think we'd be like if anyone could do whatever they liked? Imagine the road toll for a start.... how many people you know and care for would be hurt or killed if it was up to anyone to ride or drive however they wished?
Weapons of Mass Acceleration
Ain't that the truth. They waste taxpayers hard earned money with their egotistic arguments, childish behaviour and general dicking around - it's no wonder they censor the chamber TV cameras.
Last of a dying breed
I don't have a problem with tickets when they are deserved. But to do a "shit, almost end of month and I need heaps of them written, better get busy" attitude has nothing to do with making the roads safer.
Weapons of Mass Acceleration
Agreed - but one would have to wonder what the cop was doing all month to get into that position.... if its HP staff - I doubt it would be paperwork for criminal cases before the courts. Maybe a run of drink drive cases going to hearings perhaps.
Forum whore
An invalid argurment. Do not let the homonymic gentleman see that. Noone is proposing that there be no laws, or rules. But laws and rules are of several types.
Some are those of general agreement. For instance, the "left rule". Clearly it would be unwise for traffic to promiscously decide which side of the road to drive on. So , by more or less mutual agreement, it was decided "Everyone will keep left". That is clear and simple. I doubt anyone disagrees with that rule (or at any rate the bit about everyone sticking to the same side.)
Others of of the "fair's fair" variety. For instance, give way and stop sign rules. Someone has to give way, or bangs result. The authorities decide who. Over time, everyone gets a fair turn.
But speeding rules are none of these. The speed limit is not one of mutal agreement (which is why so many people break it). Nor is it one where there is a compelling reason why a rule must exist. Some bureaucrat decided that noone should be allowed to drive at more than 100kph. Why ? Noone knows? Does my driving at 120kph cause anyone else a problem (assuming that my 120 is acceptably safe) . No. It is not like a give way rule where my breaking it disadvantages someone else.
You ask (somewhat fatuously) "how many people you know and care for would be hurt or killed if it was up to anyone to ride or drive however they wished". Which noone proposes. But the question that might be asked in this context is "how many people you know and care for would be hurt or killed if it was up to anyone to ride or drive at whatever speed was safe for them on that road under those conditions". The answer is very probably , "no more than under the present dispensation , and possibly fewer" .
If there were no speed limit, would people , on average , drive faster?h Probably not. They might well drive slower (Mabel notoriously drives up to the speed limit. She does not feel safe at that speed but she feels she ought to because the sign says 100). A few unwise people would drive at speeds inappropriate for their skills or the conditions. They can easily be dealt with under the existing dangerous driving rules, or, if desired, a new law of "inappropriate speed". Wouuld there be more crashes ? Almost certainly not . Would the road toll go up. Probably not.
So the speed limit is not there (as other road rules are ) because there must be SOME rule. Or because there is any valid evidence that 100kph is a magical figure beyond which quantum effects cause molecular disintegration. Some bureaucrat years ago, following the universal obsession of the Sheeple for controlling other peoples lives, reasoned that people could not possibly be allowed to make decisions for themselves. The Sheeple exist, after all, to decide for them. And allowing people to decide what speed to drive at violated every control freak tenet of the Sheeples' existence. So, we have a speed limit. It is doubtful if it serves any valid purpose (other than to gather revenue). Only the gullible are traduced by the propaganda of the Sheeple: most folk regard it as something that has to be lived with, but should be ignored when safe to do so.
But a wee flaw still existed. Cops, for the most part, are sensible people. Not Sheeple. So they tended to sometimes turn a blind eye to someone speeding "Can't see any harm in that on this bit of road. Just give him a wee headlamp flash, eh". Anathema. So, the Sheeple decreed that there must be quotas. The cops must be FORCED to enforce the speed limit. They must be allowed no discretion. And, strictly, they are not. Police policy states that a police officer must ticket any vehicle exceeding 110kph (or equivalent for other zones) in every single case. Of course many cops come from Nelson , and share that heroes visual impairment. Long may they do so!).
Highway Biker
I read earlier a comment if we break the law we have nothing to complain about, if everyone stopped traffic offences there would be no quotas
Mallicious Little Gnome
Once again our laws are decended from those enacted in the UK.
The first motorway in the UK, the M1, used to have no speed limit.
They had a large number of crashes and so decided to reduce the maximun speed allowable.
How did they come to the magic 70mph speed?
Simple
A British MP , Barbara Castle ( I think), announced at the time that she wouldnt like to drive at over 70mph and magically that is what the speed becamew.
In the olden days when NZ was in MPH and not KPH the top speed on the Auckland motorway was 70mph (112kph), round the bstreets in town it was 30 mph (50 kph) etc.
Came the fuel crisis and the carless days and those in POWER decided to drop the speed to 80 kph (correct me if I am wrong I wasnt here then).
Then when things got a little better they raised the speed to 100 kph (62 mph).
Efectively dropping the speed by 10 kph.
The big problem here in my personal opinion is not the speeding but the state of the roads, They are not even 2nd class roads compared to most European, US and Aussie roads.
"When you think of it,
Lifes a bowl of ....MERDE"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks