Fast and Safe

[Waylander]

What a pleasure to talk to a policeman - the usual gross dose of abuse followed by misrepresentation.

My reference was to driving on country roads. I have no problem with keeping lunatics off the roads. It is one of the most essential safety measures. It has almost NOTHING to do with speed limits for sane and competent drivers.

And who shall judge the lunatic from the sane person?? As far as I m concerned all other drivers are lunatics and should be watched out for and I drive/ride acordingly. I have even been known to drive like a lunatic on occansion but that doesnt make me a bad driver and should be baned from the road.

[Blakamin]

wow... this shit is still going............

[spudchucka]

And who shall judge the lunatic from the sane person??

Thats a very good reason why Alan's ideas won't work. Its also an obvious reason why we have a speed limit that is predominantly safe for most people in most situations. Once police get the Stupidometers installed there might be some hope.

[Alan Wilkinson]

And who shall judge the lunatic from the sane person??

The courts on the initiative of the police, just as in all other cases - aided by appropriate professionals. But we need to do more to stop mentally ill, suicidal and maniacal people getting onto our roads as well. I'd like to see much less money wasted on "speed kills" campaigns and much more spent on that.

[scumdog]

The courts on the initiative of the police, just as in all other cases - aided by appropriate professionals. But we need to do more to stop mentally ill, suicidal and maniacal people getting onto our roads as well.

So when are you going to hand in your licence? :spudwhat:

[Blakamin]

The courts on the initiative of the police, just as in all other cases - aided by appropriate professionals. But we need to do more to stop mentally ill, suicidal and maniacal people getting onto our roads as well. I'd like to see much less money wasted on "speed kills" campaigns and much more spent on that.

Coz the courts have soooo much spare time................

[speedpro]

I'm thinking of starting another thread seeing as this one is going so well. I actually think Spud and Alan might have more in common than you might expect. Silly eh?

[spudchucka]

The courts on the initiative of the police, just as in all other cases - aided by appropriate professionals. But we need to do more to stop mentally ill, suicidal and maniacal people getting onto our roads as well. I'd like to see much less money wasted on "speed kills" campaigns and much more spent on that.

The Courts are going to be very busy places under your new regime.

Do you think that preventing mentally ill and suicidal people from obtaining a drivers licence even if they pass all the criteria for holding one would possibly be typical of the continual erosion of civil liberties that the late unlamented LTSA caused. Doesn't sound terribly encouraging for notions of civil rights really.

Actually I'm in total agreement that these people should be quite restricted as road users. But I find it interesting that you actively campaign for civil rights on an issue you feel strongly about but are willing to prejudice the same civil liberties against certain minority groups.

[spudchucka]

I actually think Spud and Alan might have more in common than you might expect.

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooo!

[marty]

Parliament has never authorised police to arrest people who refuse to give information regarding burglars. God knows why they authorised police to arrest passengers who decline to give information regarding unregistered car owners, but this is typical of the continual erosion of civil liberties that the late unlamented LTSA caused.

there's always S66 of the Crimes Act 1961 i guess - i would have used it. or even S317A and it's amendments - great stuff!

[marty]

God knows why they authorised police to arrest passengers who decline to give information regarding unregistered car owners, but this is typical of the continual erosion of civil liberties that the late unlamented LTSA caused.

.

hey spud - can you remind me where this power is found?

[spudchucka]

hey spud - can you remind me where this power is found?

Well, I can only assume he is talking about section 113(2)(a) of the Land Transport Act 1998.

113.Enforcement officers may enforce transport legislation—

(1)An enforcement officer in uniform or in possession of a warrant or other evidence of his or her authority as an enforcement officer may enforce the provisions of—

(a)The Transport Act 1962, the Local Government Act 1974, [the Local Government Act 2002,] the Road User Charges Act 1977, the Transport (Vehicle and Driver Registration and Licensing) Act 1986, the Transport Services Licensing Act 1989, the Transit New Zealand Act 1989, the Railway Safety and Corridor Management Act 1992, [the Land Transport Management Act 2003,] and this Act:

(b)Regulations and rules and bylaws in force under any Acts mentioned in paragraph (a).

(2)Without limiting any other powers conferred on an enforcement officer, an enforcement officer, in enforcing any provisions referred to in subsection (1), may at any time—

(a)Direct a person on a road (whether or not in charge of a vehicle) to give the person's name and address and date of birth, or such of those particulars as the enforcement officer may specify, and give any other particulars required as to the person's identity, and (unless the person is for the time being detained or under arrest under any enactment) give such information as is within the person's knowledge and as may lead to the identification of the driver or person in charge of a vehicle:

The penalty for which is found in section 52 of the same Act.

52.Contravening notices, requirements, etc, given or imposed by enforcement officers—

(1)A person commits an offence if the person—

(a)Removes, obscures, or renders indistinguishable a notice affixed to a vehicle under section 115, unless new evidence of vehicle inspection has been obtained for the vehicle [or (if the notice was given under section 96(1B)) the direction requiring the vehicle not to be driven on a road has been cancelled under section 102(3)(b) or section 110(3)(a)(ii)]; or

(b)Drives a vehicle to which a notice under section 115 applies (other than when driving in compliance with a condition imposed under subsection (4) or subsection (5) of that section [or under section 96(1D)]) before new evidence of vehicle inspection has been obtained for, and is displayed on, the vehicle; or

(c)Fails or refuses to comply with any lawful requirement, direction, notice, request, or prohibition given to or imposed on him or her under this Act by an enforcement officer or a dangerous goods enforcement officer; or

(d)Whether or not he or she is the person to whom the direction was given, knowingly drives a heavy motor vehicle on a road in breach of a direction given by an enforcement officer under section 128.

(2)The maximum penalty on conviction for an offence against subsection (1) is a fine not exceeding $10,000.

Doesn't say anything about a power to arrest as far as I can tell.

[bluninja]

Seems to me people can't see the wood for the trees on both sides of the forest. There appears to be several issues here:-

1) What is the best way to manage road use in NZ?
2) Is the money currently spent on road safety policies delivering?

Unless someone is willing to stand up and create a statement of intent of how they believe the road system should be used, and then create policies aligned to that statement of intent....and most importantly generate sufficient support to implement them, nothing will change (much).

It appears that Alan's site really concentrates on item 2, but I don't see any positive and practical solutions proposed; though he has made an excellent attempt at providing an opposing view to LTSA information. A part of me says 'So what?'. Even if the information is totally made up as an after the fact justification, what justification is there to change the system? and to what?

The smokescreen and attacks on policing methods etc...hey we've already got lots of threads on here doing that. Seems a weak way to go about getting change by attaking the enforcers of the policy, rather than the policy makers.

So Alan a few questions :-
1) If you were to choose only 3 measures to improve road safety what would they be?
2) What 3 policies would you propose to improve the use of NZs roading infrastructure to the beneift of the majority of Kiwis?

[Alan Wilkinson]

1) If you were to choose only 3 measures to improve road safety what would they be?
2) What 3 policies would you propose to improve the use of NZs roading infrastructure to the beneift of the majority of Kiwis?

Sorry, out the door now for a couple of days offline probably. There's a bit here but I've been working on other stuff not yet on the website:

http://www.fastandsafe.org/site.aspx/Pages/wishList

Also here:

http://www.fastandsafe.org/site.aspx...ia/LTSADefunct

[hobdar]

Here is a question, for both sides of this argument.....

If we all drove mechanically sound cars i.e. up to correct WOF standard. (as required by the road code)

and to the road code (which is the speed limit or as conditions determine i.e. its wet you slow down)

Do you think that we would have a nil death toll?

Now putting Alans example given many posts back ....

If we drove at a speed that we ourselves determine is safe (correct me if i am wrong in this) on the open road (and residential??) would this contribute to the current death toll or decrease it?


Your thoughts?