Fast and Safe

[spudchucka]

I don't know that the intention is to rubbish the police. They just cop it because they have to front the policy. The frustration is because of the sense of unfairness and increasingly because its seems there is lots of pain with not much gain.

I can understand that some people might take that position but the likes of Alan Wilkinson,

PhD, BSc(Hons).
Currently a director of several private companies and investor. Previously a research scientist, university senior lecturer, computer software programmer and consultant, and founding partner in Marshal Software Ltd.

should be slightly more sophisticated than to just shoot the messenger.

[spudchucka]

Unfortunately, Spud, there are enough of your colleagues who give them the ammunition and reason. I know enough cops socially to know that most of the bad press that the NZ police receive isn't due to the guys on the front line, it is handed down from much higher up.

I'm not arguing that changes aren't there to be made.

What pisses me off with guys like Alan and Lou is that they just shoot blindly at any opportunity. Their knowledge of the actual facts regarding policy and operational procedure is severely limited, (niether of them, as far as I'm aware, has ever been a police officer), yet for some reason they think that they are in a position to pass what they lead others to believe is "expert" comment. The truth is that their opinions regarding police policy, (thats all they are, opinions) are based on assumption and very little facts.

Alan has a whole web site of stats and graphs to support his claims. So what? The LTSA and police have just as many stats and graphs to support their side of the issue. Whose facts are more factual than whose? For anyone that actually cares, (and I don't think many would put their hands up), I'd suggest reading Allan's site, alongside the LTSA and police sites, then sum it up with your own experiences with a large dulop of common sense and make up your own minds.

There area few front line ones who just enjoy making life hard for the average citizen, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

I've come across only two that I would place in this category and they both got what was coming to them. Cops aren't immune from a good karma slap.

Don't pay too much attention to what appears to be directed at you. I know anything I say bad about the police force isn't directed at you or any of the other cops on here, its directed at the politicians who make the policy. Chances are that some of the personal comments that others are making is also directed more at the system rather than at you.

I don't take it personally, these people don't know me other than the KB persona they see on the screen. And no its not a picture of me in my profile either.

[modalx]

A couple of things are coming up. One is the issue of statistics and whether or not you can trust them. The general sentiment seems to be that they are so easily manipulated that they are of no real use. I guess my question then is how do we know what we should do to improve anything? And by anything I mean well ANYTHING. We have done so well technologically in the last 200 years because of a concept called the 'scientific method'. This is based on the idea that to make progress and not get confused by random events and various biases, you need to decide very specifically what proposition or idea you want to test, design an experiment, then you carefully measure and assess to see if your idea was correct.

When we do things in our own lives we usually make decisions based on personal previous experience or 'intuition' or what side of the bed we got out of. When we are spending huge amounts of public money (our taxes) on trying to improve something we need to be much more rigorous than that. It would be irresponsible to rely on gut feeling. We might think intuitively that there would be fewer injuries on the roads if no-one exceeded 100kph but that is not good enough. To make it even worse we have to be sure not only that rigid enforcement works to reduce injuries but that rigid enforcement is the BEST way and also that it is WORTH the cost. We know at the very best that rigid enforcement has had a minimal effect. There are many many other ways of spending that tax dollar which might be much better value for society overall.

So we need the statistics and they are not really that hard. The trouble is that most of us don't have the time to wade through the detail to make sure we understand the context and the constraints of the analysis. We need to have experts we can trust to do this on our behalf. Much of science has a good way to do that through the major journals. If a major journal publishes something we can be assured that it has been checked in detail because the journal's reputation relies on accurate work. Unfortunately most of the research used to support the speed policies in NZ and Aussie is based on the work of a very small number of people most of whom work for organisations whose kudos and reputation relies on the acceptance of the Victorian flavour of the 'speed kills' doctrine. That's just the reality of it - I'm not knocking them for being passionate. But there is plenty of research from elsewhere (and now specific outcome data right here in NZ) that should be making us go - hmmmm...

This is not about telling people they can do what they like on the road for heaven's sake - its about being thoughtful, accurate and efficient when we (as a society) decide to step in to regulate the behaviour of our citizens. Governments make bad decisions too.

[spudchucka]

Mr Wilkinson didn't exactly rate very highly on my list of people whose opinions matters to me, then I read this

Words just about fail me on this story. A disgrace to my sex, three carloads of cops bullying a teenage mother. Just a gang of low-life thugs in my book, and that goes too for their spineless commander who ducks his responsibility behind "just following guidelines".

But of course the hidden story here is that vehicle registration fees are sky-rocketing beyond the ability of low-paid families to afford. Why? Because the ACC levy component is rising due to the increased road injuries caused by the catastrophic failure of rigid speed enforcement policies.

So the police are responsible for the whole sorry story here from start to finish. Uncaring total incompetence reigns.

on his web site and now he's firmly at the bottom of the list. Not that it would bother him at all I guess.

[spudchucka]

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

Rigid speed limit enforcement by the NZ police produced no change in fatality trend but a large upward trend in crashes and injuries in every district. Waikato got it sooner - with the introduction of hidden speed cameras. Excessive speeding tickets just mean more traffic injuries but no fewer deaths.

I would like Alan to explain to me logicaly and in common every day language, without the use of statistics, how exactly rigid speed limit enforcement by police is responsible for an upward trend in crashes and injuries.

[Waylander]

Think the upward trend in deaths has more to do with the rise in popularity of street racing probably.

[Alan Wilkinson]

You have resorted to patronising questions, attempting to bait a policeman I happen to respect into defending his career and labelling him as tedious, and fundamentally showing a lack of respect for your position as a very new member of a forum devoted to the social aspects of motorcycling. Not only that, you take an intellectual stance on your viewpoint, and contradict that by using emotive arguments when pushed hard to explain your position by someone with a differing view.

Drivel. I have not used any emotive arguments, neither have I baited Spud - he is obviously capable of frothing at the mouth without any baiting whatever. I did find it tedious to have to explain the same factors yet again in this thread but I didn't label him tedious.

[Alan Wilkinson]

how exactly rigid speed limit enforcement by police is responsible for an upward trend in crashes and injuries

The short answer is no-one knows yet why it has happened. It would be helpful if the police and MOT recognised and admitted that it has happened and assisted an investigation of why.

At the moment we can only speculate on possible reasons. They include various consequences of making overtaking more difficult including congestion & close following, boredom, frustration, trying to maintain the speed limit on slow sections of roads, speedo watching.

But we need analysis to find out what kinds of crashes have increased. All I know is that it is NZ wide, worst in Southern police district and applies both in 100 km/h and 50 km/h areas.

[Alan Wilkinson]

So you are against police using whatever lawful means available to them to catch burglars. Don't moan when your place gets knocked over then.

I believe that taking a baby away from its mother in order to force her to talk amounts to mental torture and thuggery and even if it was lawful (and at least one lawyer says it was not) it is not something that I condone.

And no, not everything that is lawful should be done.

[Alan Wilkinson]

Mr Wilkinson didn't exactly rate very highly on my list of people whose opinions matters to me, then I read this on his web site and now he's firmly at the bottom of the list. Not that it would bother him at all I guess.

Ah, we agree about something at last, Spud.

[Alan Wilkinson]

Was reading another thread and wonderd how Alan would answere this; if everyone already drives at a safe speed for them why do boyracers wreck and endanger others everyday they are on the road? Obviosly they are not driving at speeds that are safe for them and are a great risk to others. Granted not all boy racers are idiots. So how would you propose to keep everyone safe if all of them could drive at whatever speed they want?

I have never said that everyone always drives at a safe speed.

I have said that speed limit enforcement should be common sense prosecuting dangerous and stupid behaviour and it should be a defence if you can prove you were driving safely in the circumstances that applied.

My example of driving country roads was just to show that people have been using their own judgement about safe speed for a long time and that does not equate to being irresponsible.

[Waylander]

But sometimes what someone judges to be a safe speed is quite dangerous. imagine if you will someone is coming around a blind corner at about 150 KmH or so and someone goin the sam direction is doin about 50KmH just on the other side of the turn. Both drivers doin that they judge to be safe speed. now you tell me what do you think will happen?? Should the first driver be able to get out of the fine and possible jail time for killing/injurring/coliding with the second driver just by saying he/she was going what they deemed to be a safe speed?

[speedpro]

The law quite nicely covers that scenario, something along the lines of being able to stop before you hit anything. If the corner is so tight as to be "blind" then you must travel at a low enough speed that you are able to stop if something comes into view.

[Waylander]

But from what i understand Allen says nothing about it as far as i know (i havnt read his site and i dont plan to but i have been keeping a close attention to what has been goin on in this thread.)

[Indo]

So the police were using the road tax law as a pretext to forcibly extract information from a suspect's partner regarding another matter?

No those terrible revenue gathering Police were using the law and entirely legal means to attempt to catch a burglar.

And if the lawyer quoted was right, failure to give such information is not an offence subject to arrest, but only a ticket/summons?

He's completely incorrect, Obstruction is almost entirely a matter dealt with by arrest. Really Allan don't you even bother to research at all before jumping to conclusions and slandering Police all based on what you read in a Sunday Tabloid?