Fast and Safe

[Alan Wilkinson]

So who gets to define if it is safe or not....

Durn it, just as I was signing off you ask a reasonable question!

The courts would judge it, expert witnesses would provide evidence. It would be an evolving story in the form of precedents as knowledge and processes changed.

At present it is formulated in secret by bureaucrats and is unchallengeable once adopted. That is unreasonable.

Being on the wrong side of the road on a blind corner would never qualify as safe, you can bet.

[T.I.E]

excellent post, like the site too.

how ever i am worried with the public view on police in new zealand and the ltsa. they are a law to their own. they also bend and break the law all the time. what we don't know about the law and or legisaltion, they will use to their advantage. if we smartened our selves up we would be keeping them honest.

that site is just that way to do so.

ignorance is bliss, as it is easier to walk past something you don't want to see.

don't get this wrong there are some honest real police out there, whom love their jobs and what they do. i just wish there were more of them.

[hobdar]

At present it is formulated in secret by bureaucrats and is unchallengeable once adopted. That is unreasonable.

Being on the wrong side of the road on a blind corner would never qualify as safe, you can bet.

You totally ignore the process that laws currently follow to become laws...

Go and study POLS101, the laws follow a democratic process people have the opportunity to have there say on what they think, and the committee of duly elected representatives then decide based on the information from both experts and non-experts on the particular subject.

If you want to change something you have the opportunity to start a referendum (though you will need to get enough people to sign it....) ....

become an MP and then you get to vote in government or of course you can ask ACT to put you on their party list...though i doubt they will get enough to put any list MP in to Government this year let alone a electoral seat(reflecting your constituents) assuming you get enough votes...or the part gets enough votes

Publishing the info on a website heck you can publish any thing you want....Hell i can publish that the Second World War never happened...people may believe me but will it be true.....honest or even based on fact...

Oh wait this sounds familiar

[Hitcher]

You totally ignore the process that laws currently follow to become laws...

There is truth in what you say regarding "process". However officials have considerable power in progressing an agenda. They are the folk charged with analysing public submissions. Ministers too have considerable influence -- one of the perks of being part of the coalition in control. Just look at all of the "reforms" that have taken place since the 1980s. A good example is the electoral reform process that got us stuck with MMP -- "Do you want to be killed by firing squad or lethal injection?"

[Alan Wilkinson]

You totally ignore the process that laws currently follow to become laws...

We're not talking about laws here (re safety standards), we're talking about regulations which have nothing to do with Parliament. Bureaucratic processes create them and Ministers sign them off. It's all within the government, not Parliament.

[Indo]

My opinion stands. If any civilian had done what those police did he would be serving a jail term.

Err yes Alan, however thats quite a ridiculous statement to make, in this country we give Police special powers to arrest and detain people. I would love it if you could point out to me exactly how the Police broke the law in this case.

Those police carried out an "arrest" in order to put psychological pressure on a pregnant teenage mother giving them the opportunity to remove her baby to increase that pressure.

Alan, if you were the Police in this instance what exactly would you do? Would you allow the partner of a criminal to break the law simply because taking action against her would offend your sense of gallantry?

It seems to be even reading this biased article that the Police did everything in their power to persuade her to OBEY the law so they didn't have to arrest her.

Having been burgled before i want the Police to use every power they have to catch these peices of shit and if the partner of a burgular wants to thumb her nose at the law and society then i don't have any sympathy when she gets arrested as a consequence.

That you police call her a scumbag does not give you any rights to inflict punishments or sanctions on her. That is the function of the courts not the police.

Im kinda lost at the point you are making here, that shes a scumbag (just the opinion i have of burgulars in general) is beside the point. The Police have the right to arrest people who break the law and it is the function of the Police not the courts in this country to arrest people.

And by your account it was an abuse of process and a perversion of the intent of the law.

By my account? i wasn't there and neither were you Alan. The only account we have is that of a burgular and a tabloid paper. The difference is that unlike you I chose not to take a burgulars claims in a tabloid at face value. The fact that the article is so riddled with obvious inaccuracies makes me wonder if you even read it before posting it on your site. However even basing my opinion solely off the burglars account of events I can see that she was being delibrately obstructive to protect another criminal and was arrested as a result. Something which I and i think alot of the law abiding public don't have a problem with.

I have no agenda re the police

.....

that whenever additional powers are given to police they will almost certainly be abused sooner or later.

And given that you have no 'agenda' against the Police Alan, why then would you post a tabloid article full of inaccurices aimed solely at defaming the Police on your web site?

The fact is you took the account of a burgular in an article you read in a crappy tabloid not known for journalistic integrity as gospel. You brought the story hook line and sinker as soon as you saw the headline 'draconian' Police, that to me makes any claims you have of being 'unbiased' and factual as simple farce. Really who are you trying to kid?

[Lou Girardin]

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



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?

An 'alleged' burglar, if I'm not mistaken.
It also seems the the guiding principle here is "the end justifies the means" (terrorising a Mother into confession), not terribly encouraging for notions of civil rights really.
But then the war cry of fascists everywhere is "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" isn't it?

[scumdog]

I think you missed the point although it was quite simple. Drivers don't need speed limits to control their speeds safely. They do it already without endangering others. Moreover, almost all of them are good at it.

Eh? eh? Have you lost you marbles? A hell of a lot of drivers would be out of their depth driving an electric dogem at a side-show!

So the guy I got cruising through town at 99kph was "quite good at it" and "controls his speed safely"????????

[idb]

The real point is that I should be able to drive at whatever speed I want because I am oozing common sense and ability.
I don't want anyone else to have the same freedom on the same roads as me though cos I don't trust them.
There - I've said it!
Whaaaaat?! :spudwhat:

[SPman]

....Is not the traffic speed law set, so that vehicles who pass a warrant of fitness can safely travel according to the road code, without causing harm to ourselves or others.

Whatever gave you that idea?

If we break the road rules regardless of the ectenuating circumstances then we should accept responsibility and suck up the fine or the deaths that we cause,

And who is arguing against that. If you fuck up and cause an accident, regardless of whether you are inside or outside the law - it is your responsibility - no question about that! In fact its more about personal responsibilty. To often now the excuse is - I wasnt breaking the speed limit - I must have been safe - its someone elses fault because there isnt a law about it..its the roads fault! (always a favourite with the media).blah blah blah. People want a nice soft cosy law or regulation, so they can shirk their responsibilities and put the blame on someone or something else!

The road law (in my opinion) is set to define a safe environment for everyone no matter if your Peter Brock, Possum Bourne or Joe Bloggs down the road.....driving a crap bike an R1, a top of the line cage or a VW beetle....it has to be set with all the variables in mind..

I agree. Set a medium standard that tries to accommadate everybody and their variables. Its not so much the setting of regulations, its the zealousness with which they are enforced to the letter in widely differing situations that becomes the problem. One size does not fit all and never will.The differing vehicle dynamics between cars, bikes and trucks seldom seem to be taken into account by the regulators. 100 k down a packed single lane highway in the rain is different to 130k down a deserted wide dry well surfaced highway.Yet people will sit at 100 k in the rain with a 1/2 second gap and because the road code says they are legal, they think they are safe! Take a road code as a starting point, by all means,but for gods sake try and instill in ALL drivers, some sort of personal responsibilty for their actions and attitudes, not swaddle them in the false belief, that if they travel everywhere, in any conditions at 50 / 100k, they must be safe drivers, because they arent speeding.

We have the rights to travel at the limits set by the rode code and the responsibility to do so...if we go outside those limits we deserve what we get....

Yes, but!.......enforcement on dangerous, erratic, stupidity on the road with PROPER education and training for drivers and their attitudes is still the best way to go.
In the UK, one of the Constabularies, reduced the speed limit of a popular byway, with no previous history of being a black spot, from 60 to 30mph, then lined it with speed cameras - all as a safety measure, of course. Accidents increased 57% within 6 weeks!
NSW authorities, in an effort to discourage new motorcycle riders, set up a quite stiff training regime to get a bike licence. New riders in NSW have had a quite dramatic drop in injury accidents and deaths, going against the trends in other states.
.........................
So why should the rules be set at the lowest common denominator and everyone dumbed down to them. Set them higher and if you dont measure up....tough. And not just an ability to follow rules, either! Another example of everyone can do everything...its our right...even if we're incapable....no losers...no one can perform better than he who will come last!
I could just see that happening in aviation.....eh Marty?!

[Alan Wilkinson]

Indo, the police should have done exactly what they would have done had the car been registered regarding the "burglar" and exactly what they would have done regarding the registration matter had it been any other mother and her child.

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.

You say you don't have any direct knowledge of the woman you have called a scumbag, nor about the incident. You have actually failed to point to any errors in the article at all, except the misreporting of one of the lawyers. And since you have made a big obnoxious thing about that and much else - I asked you about it precisely because I doubted it was accurately reported. And that makes no difference to my opinion on that incident.

As with Spud, after more than sufficient exposure, I have little interest in your opinions.

[spudchucka]

An 'alleged' burglar, if I'm not mistaken.
It also seems the the guiding principle here is "the end justifies the means" (terrorising a Mother into confession), not terribly encouraging for notions of civil rights really.
But then the war cry of fascists everywhere is "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" isn't it?

Even the ones caught red handed are "alleged" burglars and none of them give a stuff about the civil rights or the property rights of the poor shmucks they steal from.

[Alan Wilkinson]

Eh? eh? Have you lost you marbles? A hell of a lot of drivers would be out of their depth driving an electric dogem at a side-show!

So the guy I got cruising through town at 99kph was "quite good at it" and "controls his speed safely"????????

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.

[spudchucka]

As with Spud, after more than sufficient exposure, I have little interest in your opinions.

Answer my questions in post 161 and I'll play nice again, promise.

[spudchucka]

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

Go read your own web site, its full of abuse and gross misrepresentation, I've just been trying to make you feel at home.