Fast and Safe

[Alan Wilkinson]

1/3 or less where do you get this figure from, heck if i was able to contest a speeding ticket i would...hell think of the overtime for the cops being dragged into court....the cost of the wages of the people who work in the courts, the added cops to cover the cost of police being tied up in court cases.....

Because the number of tickets would drop back to the days when cops' common-sense discretion prevailed and a little below that, because even then some traffic cops had no common sense. I think that would be around 30% of what we have now, although it could be a lot less eventually as the law gets clarity and everyone learns from it.

[sparrow_34]

My common-sense tells me, that if I rely on the common-sense of the boys in blue to let me off if I am breaking a speed limit, then I will begin to question my own common-sense.

[Alan Wilkinson]

My common-sense tells me, that if I rely on the common-sense of the boys in blue to let me off if I am breaking a speed limit, then I will begin to question my own common-sense.

I think the law would quickly develop guidelines on what is safe and what is not and both drivers and cops would learn about these and not try to take losing cases to courts which would penalise either side for being out of line.

[hobdar]

Because the number of tickets would drop back to the days when cops' common-sense discretion prevailed and a little below that, because even then some traffic cops had no common sense. I think that would be around 30% of what we have now, although it could be a lot less eventually as the law gets clarity and everyone learns from it.

Well so much for rigorus research.....your guessing....

the cops are just doing what they are told.

Why don't you commission some research through a reputable University (they are always looking for money and will gladly research something if you pay for it) and get them to look at the New Zealand environment and why crashes occur...

[Alan Wilkinson]

Well so much for rigorus research.....your guessing....

Statements about the future are always guesses.

Why don't you commission some research through a reputable University (they are always looking for money and will gladly research something if you pay for it) and get them to look at the New Zealand environment and why crashes occur...

We have commissioned some research already. We used a major law firm first. They proposed quite a lot of options for future research and I expect we will pursue some.

The problem with crash cause research is that raw data of sufficient quality is not easily available. The LTSA data base of crash causes is hopeless. I have looked at the classification criteria and it is so ill-defined the data is useless.

Crashes are often complex. (Not talking about the drunken lunatic type.) I think most value would come from an independent serious crash unit investigating and publishing public reports on individual crashes the way the air safety authorities do.

[spudchucka]

Nothing I can say will discredit you. You have to do it yourself.

You may not think much of me, feelings mutual. If I discredit myself then I'll have to live with that. But I didn't suggest you were trying to discredit me. I said your motivation is to discredit "the" police. If in doing that you somehow discredit me because I'm part of that organisation then I'll live with that too.

Alan, if you stuck to what you say is your primary aims are

We aim to:

* make road travel faster, safer, cheaper and more flexible
* stop road users being ripped off by unproductive regulations and enforcement policies
* reverse the erosion of our civil rights and freedoms
* provide accurate, relevant, and authenticated information
* refute misleading slogans and other misrepresentations
* expose vested interests supporting bad road safety policies

and didn't go off on a crusade of dirty politics and smear campaigns then I'd be giving you a lot more credit.

This website debunks those falsehoods and we maintain a rigorous respect for the truth and for open debate.

Your web site is full of falsehoods, half truths and assumptions on issues you have little or no practical exerience of.

On the face of what I've seen you simply have an axe to grind and aren't too fussed about how you go about sharpening it.

If you stuck to the issue you'd go up in my estimation.

[spudchucka]

Crashes are often complex. (Not talking about the drunken lunatic type.)

Everything is complex dependant on how in depth you want to examine it. Sometimes over examination just increases the fog, (unable to see the wood for the trees so to speak). Crashes are also extremely basic, the KISS formula is often relevant.

A driver lost control.
The car hit something.

[scumdog]

I think the law would quickly develop guidelines on what is safe and what is not and both drivers and cops would learn about these and not try to take losing cases to courts which would penalise either side for being out of line.

Courts are clogged as it is; what would they be like if each motorist stood there clutching their ticket waiting for a chance to say why it was undeserved and their driving was quite safe at that time and in those circumstances?? Even if each only took 15 minutes (unlikely to be THAT short) just imagine 1000's all wanting their 15 minutes :spudwhat:

[SPman]

I'd suggest that you practice being a little more sycinct with your comments then, that way nodoby will misinterpret what you say.
.

Nodoby? What. Do you mean no doobie in reference to an earlier comment? Or am I misinterpreting you?

[spudchucka]

I think the law would quickly develop guidelines on what is safe and what is not and both drivers and cops would learn about these and not try to take losing cases to courts which would penalise either side for being out of line.

People will no doubt take the approach of a certain shotgun toting activist and call 500 witnesses who will all spout whatever purjury he wants them to.

The courts can't cope with the load they have now. The cost of the ensuing rort on the legal aid system would cost the country $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

[Mongoose]

Thanks for the answers again Alan. kind of you to take the time.
I agree with some one else who said you should stick to your own admitted aims on your site. You tend to cofuse yourself and start making reference to lealising dope when the point of discusion is about speed on our roads.
You are also showing signs of what i consoder greed, you only refer to NI roads and conveniently forget NZs largest Island.To do this will get zilch support from the South Islanders, losing you approx 25% of your potential support base, meaning you would have to garner over roughly 60% or the remaining potential support for your cause.
As I also said back there, your site seems more politically inclined and takes pleasure in attacking the Police when these attacks are not about speed on the roads, why do you do this?

[Alan Wilkinson]

People will no doubt take the approach of a certain shotgun toting activist and call 500 witnesses who will all spout whatever purjury he wants them to.

The courts can't cope with the load they have now. The cost of the ensuing rort on the legal aid system would cost the country $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Not if they don't get legal aid.

[Mongoose]

Not if they don't get legal aid.

What are you saying Alan, just in case i picked your meaning up all wrong, that not only does your plan involve reforming roading and traffic laws in NZ but also either abolishes legal Aid or you propose changes of some sort to it?

[Alan Wilkinson]

I agree with some one else who said you should stick to your own admitted aims on your site. You tend to cofuse yourself and start making reference to lealising dope when the point of discusion is about speed on our roads.

You seem to be always just looking for something to criticise. That response was in regard to police overloads and costs.

You are also showing signs of what i consoder greed, you only refer to NI roads and conveniently forget NZs largest Island.To do this will get zilch support from the South Islanders, losing you approx 25% of your potential support base, meaning you would have to garner over roughly 60% or the remaining potential support for your cause.

No, I was born & bred in Chch and lived there for 40 years. But I've been away a long time now so I don't pretend to make specific comments about it.

As I also said back there, your site seems more politically inclined and takes pleasure in attacking the Police when these attacks are not about speed on the roads, why do you do this?

Example? Even the baby-snatch page has a connection and that's about the only one I can think of you might mean. And in that case I expressed my disgust that ever more draconian road safety measures are being misused for other purposes by the police.

[Alan Wilkinson]

What are you saying Alan, just in case i picked your meaning up all wrong, that not only does your plan involve reforming roading and traffic laws in NZ but also either abolishes legal Aid or you propose changes of some sort to it?

Well I certainly don't believe people should get legal aid to make frivolous challenges to traffic tickets.