Fast and Safe

[spudchucka]

But we might even find out if the police really do have ticket quotas and if so where they come from. Or whether they have the integrity to oppose policies that fail to do anything useful, cause a number of people to lose their livelihoods unjustly and cause many decent people to be treated like criminals in their own country?

If you are still stuck in the whole "do the police have a quota" question then your credibility will take a nose dive I'm afraid.

I'll explain it again, hopefully for the last time ever on this web site.

Police receive funding from various agencies to deliver directed traffic enforcement. ACC funds the booze busses for instance.

In return for these funds the police are expected to deliver X amount of hours of the specific traffic enforcement agreed upon by the parties involved.

If they don't deliver the hours then the funding will dry up for the next year and the police will have to lose staff.

The police then allocate traffic enforcement hours to their troops on the street. When a cop on the street records time spent on traffic enforcement they are expected to achieve X amount of "contacts" per hour of traffic enforcement delivered. The amount of contacts per hour can vary between districts but it is usually 1 - 2 contacts per hour. A contact can be an Infringement Offence Notice or ION, (speeding tickets etc), a Traffic Offence Notice or TON, (dangerous driving, alcohol offences etc) a verbal warning or assisting a motorist to name only the most common ones.

Cops ticket rates in relation to hours delivered against contacts achieved are part of their annual performance appraisals. If they don't achieve the 1 - 2 contacts per hour then they may get an adverse performance appraisal.

If I locate a driver commiting an offence then I write them a ticket and record the appropriate traffic hours delivered. If I don't locate any driver commiting an offence worthy of receiving a ticket then I don't record any traffic hours. I'm usually looking for traffic offences between general duties jobs anyway and don't have a lot of time with nothing to do other than traffic work. I don't record verbal warnings as contacts because too many warnings can indicate that you are unwilling to issue tickets and if you don't want to ever write tickets then as a cop you are probably in the wrong job.

cause a number of people to lose their livelihoods unjustly and cause many decent people to be treated like criminals in their own country?

Thats just utter crap. If they took some responsibility for their own actions they wouldn't find themselves in that position in the first place. If they weren't deciding for themselves when and where particular laws applied to them they wouldn't put themselves in that position.

[spudchucka]

In the Central police district, police are now issuing 6500 speed tickets per month instead of 3000

Well you can blame me for about 8 - 10 per month.

and there are now 100 traffic injuries a month whereas if the trend prior to rigid speed limit enforcement had continued there would have been about 50.

You're simply playing the stats game, which by the way folks like yourself and Lou Girardin are constantly criticising the LTSA and police for doing exactly the same thing.

If your trend was to continue, how long would it take before injuries per month reached zero? Do you think that would have been achievable under the previous regime? If not, why not?

Are you happy about working for an organisation like that?

If you are going to ask me questions like that you can get stuffed, see ya later.

[Paul in NZ]

Well, Paul, I think it is a bit of a funny turn that a few polite questions can be so much more threatening than a bunch of insults.

And if you think it's boring, you don't have to read it.

But we might even find out if the police really do have ticket quotas and if so where they come from. Or whether they have the integrity to oppose policies that fail to do anything useful, cause a number of people to lose their livelihoods unjustly and cause many decent people to be treated like criminals in their own country?

And I think the topic is relevant to motorcyclists. I didn't start it.

What I object to is your lecturing and beligerant tone Alan. I dear say you are a really clever guy and know a lot about this but I don't think you should be hassling members of this forum because of their vocation or calling their individual integrety into question. It's the first sign of a zealot with a flawed argument.

Believe it or not, this country is still a democracy. If your views can attract enough support and you are charming enough you can change the way things are done but I doubt you will accomplish much here by causing friction. I'd practise your deplomacy as well as your statistics because your are starting to sound like someone that got a ticket that he didn't like.

I didn't say it was boring, I said I would bore people with the story.

Lighten up.

Paul N

ps - go learn to ride a bike and chill out.

[Alan Wilkinson]

You're simply playing the stats game, which by the way folks like yourself and Lou Girardin are constantly criticising the LTSA and police for doing exactly the same thing.

If your trend was to continue, how long would it take before injuries per month reached zero? Do you think that would have been achievable under the previous regime? If not, why not?

If we looked at the trend over a longer period we would need to use the log format because it would show as an exponential curve and approach zero but never reach it. So yes, there will be a small expected curve over the four years I extrapolated and 50 is probably a little too low. But the basic argument doesn't change.

Stats is not a game. It is a way of finding out whether what you are doing is working or not.

[Alan Wilkinson]

That sort of question doesn't really help the "debate". The company I used to work for I used to have a few problems with some of the directions I was given. It never really did any harm to anyone but I would have preferred to have been completely up-front and honest. The only thing I was a bit unhappy about with the company was the commute each day. 26km on AK motorways each day.

I think it's an important question. If you are not happy with the ethics and achievements of your company/organisation then if you can't do anything about it you should leave.

[Alan Wilkinson]

What I object to is your lecturing and beligerant tone Alan. I dear say you are a really clever guy and know a lot about this but I don't think you should be hassling members of this forum because of their vocation or calling their individual integrety into question. It's the first sign of a zealot with a flawed argument.

ps - go learn to ride a bike and chill out.

I don't think I hassled anyone. Spud (and others) needled me but I simply asked questions I am interested in the answers to.

ps - had a bike when I was younger, now enjoy a good car.

[Alan Wilkinson]

If you are still stuck in the whole "do the police have a quota" question then your credibility will take a nose dive I'm afraid.

... I don't record verbal warnings as contacts because too many warnings can indicate that you are unwilling to issue tickets and if you don't want to ever write tickets then as a cop you are probably in the wrong job.

... If they took some responsibility for their own actions they wouldn't find themselves in that position in the first place. If they weren't deciding for themselves when and where particular laws applied to them they wouldn't put themselves in that position.

What I am interested in is how the police implement changes in enforcement policy as it seems to be a tickly subject with Police HQ. It may be related to some legal issues around a police officer acting with independent discretion to enforce the law. But they seem to be very coy about the matter.

I disagree with you re deciding for themselves when the laws applied to them. The police changed their tolerance levels, the public didn't change theirs. That's why so many tickets are being issued. And breaking bad laws en masse is often the only recourse of joe citizen. Especially if you are in the minority of the population. And the way the demerit points system works, the minority who drive the most are penalised the most severely for accumulated small mistakes over a long period.

[Biff]

I've taken a look at the charts on your site Alan and I've also taken a look at the official government statistics. I conclude that both of your figures have fundamental flaws in them. This is because the statistics reported by both yourself and the government appear to fail to consider the annual increase in road traffic, a figure that I believe runs at around 7% per annum. Therefore by my calculations the number of accidents has actually fallen in real terms, because neither yours nor the governments appear to include the annual % rise in the number of motor vehicles on the road.

In order to accurately quantity any accurate statistics it is absolutely imperative that the figures presented must be taken in the context of total traffic volume.

I broadly welcome some of what your organisation is doing and there's some useful information on your site, but you've tarnished my view by posting blatant anti police stories. I mean what on earth is that crap story titled "Thuggery in Police Uniform" all about? She deserved everything she got and the officers acted within the confines of the law. She broke the law, yet they showed her some compassion. To label the cops that were there as thugs is simply a ploy to build resentment against police officers in general.

Keep it sweet and you'll gain far more credibility. Negative campaigning only works for US politicians.

Now for a dance...

[spudchucka]

If we looked at the trend over a longer period we would need to use the log format because it would show as an exponential curve and approach zero but never reach it. So yes, there will be a small expected curve over the four years I extrapolated and 50 is probably a little too low. But the basic argument doesn't change.

However common sense would tell any reasonable person that its just a theory that in practice would also be proven flawed.

Stats is not a game. It is a way of finding out whether what you are doing is working or not.

I find it interesting that anti police campaigners treat stats with utter contempt when quoted by police or LTSA sources, yet when stats are used to promote anti police / LTSA causes then the stats amount to undeniable proof.

Its a game and a bloody silly one at that.

[spudchucka]

What I am interested in is how the police implement changes in enforcement policy as it seems to be a tickly subject with Police HQ.

You won't get the answers from me, as I said before I'm just a constable, the only policy I'm going to change is when to take my meal break.

It may be related to some legal issues around a police officer acting with independent discretion to enforce the law. But they seem to be very coy about the matter.

That sounds very much like your opinion is based largely on assumptions and very little facts. Cops have discretion and the freedom to use it as they see fit, however the checks and ballances are in place to make sure it isn't abused.

I disagree with you re deciding for themselves when the laws applied to them. The police changed their tolerance levels, the public didn't change theirs.

Its not the publics right to decide what the police tolerance levels will be. Public opinion should of course be listened to but the police must be able to operate independantly of direct influence from the Govt or the public. An individual deciding what speed tolerances apply to them stinks of arogance and a lack of tolerance for other road users.

And the way the demerit points system works, the minority who drive the most are penalised the most severely for accumulated small mistakes over a long period.

So what would you propose for demerit points? A formula based on how many kms a person drives in a year?

amount speed limit exceeded by / kms travel per year = appropriate demerit points on a pro rata basis.

I was a sales rep for 6 years and travelled 70,000km each year. In 6 years I received one speeding ticket. I was one of the minority you speak of and yet I was able to drive 70,000 kms per year without being excessively penalised for small mistakes. Spending more time on the roads no doubt increases your chances statistically of being involved in an accident, getting traffic tickets and suffering vehicle breakdowns. Wouldn't it make more sense for the minority who drive the most to simply take more care when they drive and thus reduce their chances of becoming a "victim". Your scenario is just another example of people refusing to take responsibility for their own actions.

[spudchucka]

This is because the statistics reported by both yourself and the government appear to fail to consider the annual increase in road traffic, a figure that I believe runs at around 7% per annum. Therefore by my calculations the number of accidents has actually fallen in real terms, because neither yours nor the governments appear to include the annual % rise in the number of motor vehicles on the road.

I've attached a chart that clearly shows decreasing death, injury and hospitalisation rates alongside the increasing vehicle fleet. The source was the LTSA web site sometime last year.

I broadly welcome some of what your organisation is doing and there's some useful information on your site, but you've tarnished my view by posting blatant anti police stories.

These stories are the ones that reveal the true intent of the persons responsible for the web site. Mr Wilkinson is just another wealthy police hater like Bob Jones.

simply a ploy to build resentment against police officers in general.

Sums it up pretty well.

[Midnight 82]

Well you can blame me for about 8 - 10 per month.

You're simply playing the stats game, which by the way folks like yourself and Lou Girardin are constantly criticising the LTSA and police for doing exactly the same thing.

If your trend was to continue, how long would it take before injuries per month reached zero? Do you think that would have been achievable under the previous regime? If not, why not?

If you are going to ask me questions like that you can get stuffed, see ya later.

Good on ya spudchucka. I feel you guys do a faily good job. Its only the people that get ticketed all the time that bitch about the force. You seem to be reasonably cool about most things. Well you have my vote

[Alan Wilkinson]

I've taken a look at the charts on your site Alan and I've also taken a look at the official government statistics. I conclude that both of your figures have fundamental flaws in them. This is because the statistics reported by both yourself and the government appear to fail to consider the annual increase in road traffic, a figure that I believe runs at around 7% per annum. Therefore by my calculations the number of accidents has actually fallen in real terms, because neither yours nor the governments appear to include the annual % rise in the number of motor vehicles on the road.

In order to accurately quantity any accurate statistics it is absolutely imperative that the figures presented must be taken in the context of total traffic volume.

There are two separate factors to consider, and I have done my best to explain them in many ways on my site. The first is the worldwide falling long term trend. The second is what happened with the introduction of rigid speed limit enforcement.

The falling long term trend shows up on the charts for New Zealand both in the raw numbers and when you adjust them for vehicles/population or distance travelled. My point is simply when you allow for that trend then you see that speed enforcement has been an abject failure.

[Lou Girardin]

As expected replies to Alan Wilkinson have degenerated into abuse, as sure sign of a weak counter-argument.
Anyone who disagrees with the official line is a "Police - hater", exactly the response demonstrated in a book I'm currently reading, 'The Psychology of Military Incompetence' any criticism, however mild, is met with vitriolic personal attack. The are many other parallels between the Military mind and Police hierachy thought process as well.
The Police have admitted having a quota - end of story.
As for the woaman arrested for refusing to say where her boyfriend was (as if she knew). The Police were dumb enough to allow her back into her home unescorted where she got a message to her solicitor. When the cops heard that, they rapidly "unarrested" her and departed. This was thuggery plain and simple, a tactic that works on a lot of people, but she was smart enough for it to fail.

[Alan Wilkinson]

Its not the publics right to decide what the police tolerance levels will be. Public opinion should of course be listened to but the police must be able to operate independantly of direct influence from the Govt or the public. An individual deciding what speed tolerances apply to them stinks of arogance and a lack of tolerance for other road users.

Complete rubbish. It depends how they drive. On back country roads the safe speed can vary from 20 km/h to 120 km/h and everything in between. Drivers decide for themselves what speed to travel the whole journey and it has absolutely nothing to do with arrogance or (lack of) consideration of other road users.