Fast and Safe

[scumdog]

Read post 250

[Mongoose]

Firstly, I never claimed to be a lawyer or legal beagle. I consult one or look up the stuff when I need to know. In this instance I thought the Star-Times article looked dubious so asked your mate to clarify as I assumed he would know and save me the trouble. He just said obstruction usually led to arrest. What you have just said is probably what the lawyer told the reporter who then garbled it a bit.

It would be better to consult a lawyer and be able to ask further questions for clarification or read all the posts as the answer is in this thread

[Alan Wilkinson]

It has other scarily similar features as well...

Basically both threads boil down to - I'm clever and can interpret the information for all you less clever / able people because - well I'm clever.... and you are not... We are all guilty of that sin... Pride...

No, it boils down to ...

Here's the data, look at it and interpret it any way you want but you can't just ignore it if you want to be taken seriously.

[Alan Wilkinson]

Read post 250

Sorry, you beat me to it. I had missed that one first time thru then edited my post.

[Mongoose]

No, it boils down to ...

Here's the data, look at it and interpret it any way you want but you can't just ignore it if you want to be taken seriously.

Rats, so we are meant to take "I want the right to drive as I see fit" seriously?
Which, as I said earlier, is what you are promoting ammounts to as I doubt you consider yourself in the bottom 1/4 of driver skills, right?

[marty]

Sorry Spud, I got lost in the interchange between you and Marty can you please restate your/his point? :confused2

"(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 way I read the above legistlation you've posted it seems to me that she couldn't be asked any such questions if she was under arrest. Or am I missing something else? :spudwhat:

my interpretation of this is that if a person is under arrest/in custody, then they are afforded the right to silence, that is, they would have to be cautioned before being asked questions, so they cannot be charged with refusing to give those details, as they have that right to silence. if they are not under arrest/custody/identified as an offender, then they do not have to be cautioned before questioning, and should they refuse those details, they can be charged (if appropriate).

so yes, an arrested person can be asked the question, they just can't be charged (with the refusing details offence) if they refused to answer it. they can still be charged with whatever other offence they were arrested for (like party to an offence)

[Alan Wilkinson]

Rats, so we are meant to take "I want the right to drive as I see fit" seriously?
Which, as I said earlier, is what you are promoting ammounts to as I doubt you consider yourself in the bottom 1/4 of driver skills, right?

I want the right to drive (and to live) as I wish so long as what I do does not significantly adversely affect the lives, freedom or property of anyone else.

I am happy for that to be testable in court. I am not happy for the government to arbitrarily set limits on our freedoms - it should always be testable against solid evidence as to what limits are necessary.

There is a serious question as to whether speed limits have a beneficial or adverse affect on safety. There is no clear-cut scientific agreement currently on either that question or on the secondary question of how to set them. I have presented the NZ data. You can argue from it, or you can argue from whatever bunch of prejudices you might have.

J J Leeming said 30 years ago, "It doesn't matter what people think causes accidents. What matters is what does cause them." Only careful studies can find that out.

[marty]

the person being asked about the driver though, has a legislative requirement to give the information, so cannot simply say 'i'm not telling, i'm invoking my right to silence'.

well they can, but they run the risk of being charged with that offence.

[Mongoose]

I want the right to drive (and to live) as I wish so long as what I do does not significantly adversely affect the lives, freedom or property of anyone else.

gee, sounds just like Lindsay Perigo and as i thought, it ammounts to you wanting to do what you want to do and has nothing to do with anyone else, others might argue that ammounts to greed.

I am happy for that to be testable in court. I am not happy for the government to arbitrarily set limits on our freedoms - it should always be testable against solid evidence as to what limits are necessary.

And the solid evidence you would come up with in your defence would come from, you?

There is a serious question as to whether speed limits have a beneficial or adverse affect on safety. There is no clear-cut scientific agreement currently on either that question or on the secondary question of how to set them. I have presented the NZ data.

You have yet to post any "clear-cut scientific" proof of what you promote being any safer than what we now have.

You can argue from it, or you can argue from whatever bunch of prejudices you might have.

Not much point in argueing with some one who has already shown their prejudiced opinions.

J J Leeming said 30 years ago, "It doesn't matter what people think causes accidents. What matters is what does cause them." Only careful studies can find that out.

Human error would be one of the bigger causes, how do you propose to eliminate that?

[Alan Wilkinson]

I get to pick up the pieces, what do you get to do?

I get to pay for you to pick up the pieces, and to pay for your mates to issue hundreds of thousands of speeding tickets which have failed to make any detectable improvement in the road toll trend line.

I also get to pay for George Hawkins to lie to Parliament and to the public that the highway patrol has reduced fatalities when the data clearly shows the reverse.

[Blakamin]

J J Leeming said 30 years ago, "It doesn't matter what people think causes accidents. What matters is what does cause them." Only careful studies can find that out.

yup... another coupla trillion dollars to people who plot graphs and nothing known for 20 years ....
not looking for a job are you?

(pt)

I also get to pay for George Hawkins to lie to Parliament and to the public that the highway patrol has reduced fatalities when the data clearly shows the reverse.

Yeah... the fact that there are more people on the road and none are doing any courses in better driving has nothing to do with it... just data to you, aye?

[marty]

I want the right to drive (and to live) as I wish so long as what I do does not significantly adversely affect the lives, freedom or property of anyone else.

I am happy for that to be testable in court. I am not happy for the government to arbitrarily set limits on our freedoms - it should always be testable against solid evidence as to what limits are necessary.

There is a serious question as to whether speed limits have a beneficial or adverse affect on safety. There is no clear-cut scientific agreement currently on either that question or on the secondary question of how to set them. I have presented the NZ data. You can argue from it, or you can argue from whatever bunch of prejudices you might have.

J J Leeming said 30 years ago, "It doesn't matter what people think causes accidents. What matters is what does cause them." Only careful studies can find that out.

1. so go and live in northern territory
2. it has been tested in court. many, many times.
3. question for you maybe, but for those of us who have seen it 1st hand, lower speed limits and hard general road safety enforcment saves lives
4. eliminate all the factors that cause accidents and you'll be living in a bubble. i'm sure the govt et.al doesn't give a shit how many crashes happen, just how much trauma occurs in those crashes, and if they can reduce the trauma by one or two significant indicators (speed, alcohol, seat belts spring to mind) then they will go for it, as they are fiscally driven. crashes don't cost the govt. money - the trauma following does. would you be prepared to reduce your tax contribution by the amount you contribute to the health budget, and if involved in a crash pay for it out of your pocket? insurance wouldn't pay if you were speeding, eba etc. before you say "hell yeah" - do some research on a weeks stay in ITU, or 6 months in the Otara spinal unit.

[marty]

I get to pay for you to pick up the pieces, and to pay for your mates to issue hundreds of thousands of speeding tickets which have failed to make any detectable improvement in the road toll trend line.

I also get to pay for George Hawkins to lie to Parliament and to the public that the highway patrol has reduced fatalities when the data clearly shows the reverse.

not the "i pay your wages" line. now we KNOW you know what you're talking about.

[Alan Wilkinson]

Human error would be one of the bigger causes, how do you propose to eliminate that?

We have to spend more money on finding out why drivers make particular errors and then do something about it.

Firstly, there should be an independent investigative agency for serious crashes that is not linked to enforcement in any way. That is how airline safety works and it has the best record for passenger safety per distance travelled. Its reports should be public so the public can put pressure on for proper fixes when causes are known.

Secondly, as I have said, safety regulations should be testable in court. The expert evidence given will help inform and educate about what really is safe and what is not.

Thirdly, we need to allow competitive private enterprise to run road services. They will be more innovative and sensitive to reality than bureaucratic organisations which are always politically-driven.

Finally, there are already ways we know work. Motorways are the safest roads - we need more of them, certainly SH1. Head-protecting side airbags halve side impact fatalities. In Northland, simply improve the roads enormously and get people off benefits, drugs and alchohol and into jobs. Better roads up here mean more jobs and more money.

[Mongoose]

Firstly, there should be an independent investigative agency for serious crashes that is not linked to enforcement in any way. That is how airline safety works and it has the best record for passenger safety per distance travelled. Its reports should be public so the public can put pressure on for proper fixes when causes are known.


The causes are human, what are the fixes?
Airlines also cover the most distance with no other humans to cock up, remember its not just your cock up, its the other persons too.

Secondly, as I have said, safety regulations should be testable in court. The expert evidence given will help inform and educate about what really is safe and what is not.

They are, have a prang and you get to prove what you did was safe, although after a prang you might have trouble getting people to listen seriously to your arguement.


You post seems like a piece of Political Electioneering, what other policies are you standing on?