Police crackdown

**rastuscat** · 22nd November 2010, 10:43

I have lived in NZ for most of my 45 years, and confess that I'm not an expert in road safety or vehicle engineering. Coz of that I trust the people who make the cars. Luckily, they have spent gazillions of $$$$$ in R&D, and learned a few things about driver and passenger safety.

Their research has shown that seatbelts are a good idea. Holden calls airbags a supplemental restraint system (SRS), as they only work properly in conjunction with seatbelts. Airbags are normally designed with the intention of supplementing the protection of an occupant who is correctly restrained with a seatbelt.

Why spend money on a car full of safety equipment, then negate them all by not wearing the fundamental system called the seatbelt? It's free to use, and poses a far greater safety factor than a risk.

Manufacturers emphasize that an airbag is not, and can not be an alternative to seatbelts. They emphasize that they are only supplemental to a seatbelt. Hence the commonly used term "Supplemental Restraint System" or SRS. It is vitally important that drivers and passengers are aware of this. In the majority of cases of death caused by air bags, seat belts were not worn.

People who habitually don't wear them use all sorts of reasons to justify their decision, most of which have been discounted by research over the years. But that's their view, and it will not change.

Lots contend that it is a personal choice issue. I'd agree, if the taxpayer didn't have to pay for the facial reconstruction that would be required in the event of a nasty crash.

So there.

**MSTRS:Me** · 22nd November 2010, 10:49

Not the taxpayer...our vehicle levies to ACC.

**Scuba_Steve** · 22nd November 2010, 11:07

Well there's the 1st point why should anyone else tell you what you can and can't do to yourself?
but then we have ACC "everyone pays" so why should we pay for someone else to damage themselves?
Both valid arguments.

But what I'm talking bout especially is my "cage" of choice is a van, old reliable 80's vans now if I'm in a crash I'm fucked seatbelt or not I'm fucked just like on a bike (if not worse) but without the safety gear (the cops won't even let me wear a helmet)
On the other hand I have a Land-Rover now I'd be quite happy to wear a belt in this for safety but I'm not allowed, it is illegal for me to wear my belt in my Land-Rover despite it actually providing some sort of safety net in this vehicle.

These are some of my personal reason's for not liking seatbelt enforcement. I also don't like the way they put the responsibility almost wholly on the driver either

**StoneY** · 22nd November 2010, 11:58

Coincidentally, this crackdown got me on the 13th!

114kmh.... and the way that patrol unit did his u-turn and accelerated after me was impressive......also that he overshot where I had pulled over for him by about 20 meters was also impressive (he musta thought I was doing a runner as opposed to looking for a safe spot to pull over, rather than mid highway bend....)

AND the U-Turn, done in the middle of a 8 bike pack travelling at highway speed was surely a safe, professional manouver (despite the other 7 riders that had to brake hard on a rise leadig into a bend...the same bend the cop exceuted the u-turn on)

Top it all off, the tickets been written for a bike that does not exist!
I car jammed the rego number written on the ticket and no return- it dont exist!
Hows that for magic! I ride bikes that are non existent according to this police officer from Martinborough!
Amazing what a difference the order the numbers and letters are written in can make

:-)

**Ocean1** · 22nd November 2010, 12:31

Originally Posted by rastuscat

Their research has shown that seatbelts are a good idea.

Research shows that 4 point full harnesses and HANS systems are a fucking outstanding idea. Where do you draw the line?

The answer, of course is where the people using the systems decide the price, inconvenience or discomfort outweighs the safety advantages.

The people using the systems. That's not the same people paying for the consequences of that decision. See where this is going? When the service user isn't the one paying for the service you immediately have an artificial market.

Doesn't matter who's "ethically right", "legally right" or just plain "right", an artificial market can't "work" in the sense of a commercial entity might be considered to work. IE: break even.

So, y'see, way back when it was suggested that my sins would be remitted by ‘Er majesty’s servants by the simple expediency of dipping into the general funds obtained from the great unwashed, (rather than build roads and ‘com’s systems and dams, etc, etc.) I thought: wait for it, wait for it...

And it's taken a while, and the costs of a few additional transgressions and some plain misfortunes have been added to the list, but someone's finally figured out that the system can't pay for itself. And that my behaviour needs to change, in order that the great unwashed can afford to cover my sins and my misfortune.

In the meantime, I've paid enough money to cover a great deal more sin than I've actually enjoyed. So if they now want me to behave in a manner synonymous with my specific contribution to the cause, then I'm cool with that.

If, however, they just want me to slow down 'cause it'll cost the great unwashed less that way then I can but suggest that they’d be better fucking off to build some infrastructure somewhere. ‘Cause I’ll be checking the balance sheet, and I'll likely be over there… sinnin’ a bit and bein’ generally wicked.

**Patrick** · 22nd November 2010, 14:21

Dunno why the quota word is such a feared beast... that gets the motorbikers all in a frothy slather.... and Police Bosses diving for cover....

If you do one hours work on traffic duty, 1 ticket is to be issued. That is what is expected. Some will write more, some may write less, but 1-1 is the expected.

If that is "quota" then call it "quota..."

Far easier to write, spell and say, than "performance indicator..."

**MSTRS:Me** · 22nd November 2010, 14:40

The problem that we have is the denial of a quota from the brass. Denying something, and then calling it something else, is guaranteed to leave the public mistrustful.
From the public's point of view, a quota is what it is, and the fear (if you will) is that cops must write a certain number of tickets and will make up shit to achieve that if they have to.

**Patrick** · 22nd November 2010, 15:08

Originally Posted by MSTRS

The problem that we have is the denial of a quota from the brass. Denying something, and then calling it something else, is guaranteed to leave the public mistrustful.
From the public's point of view, a quota is what it is, and the fear (if you will) is that cops must write a certain number of tickets and will make up shit to achieve that if they have to.

Nice try...

Never made up one - never need to... far too many willing donors out there....

**MSTRS:Me** · 22nd November 2010, 15:22

Good for you. And I'm sure that we've all seen enough of your posts for us to believe you, too. The public don't know that for a certainty, though. Plus you are just one of many, and we also know that not all of them are squeaky...

**scumdog** · 22nd November 2010, 15:34

Originally Posted by MSTRS

From the public's point of view, a quota is what it is, and the fear (if you will) is that cops must write a certain number of tickets and will make up shit to achieve that if they have to.

Fark, too many bozos out there to need to 'make up shit' !!

Hell, if I even have any second thoughts at all about whether the person was wearing a seatbelt or not - or which car was doing the speed showing on the radar? - I don't even stop them..
Plenty more fish in the sea!

**MSTRS:Me** · 22nd November 2010, 15:36

But you are KB's official GC. We'd expect nothing less of you.
The jury is still out on Rastuscat...

**Berries** · 22nd November 2010, 18:41

Originally Posted by rastuscat

Their research has shown that seatbelts are a good idea. Holden calls airbags a supplemental restraint system (SRS), as they only work properly in conjunction with seatbelts. Airbags are normally designed with the intention of supplementing the protection of an occupant who is correctly restrained with a seatbelt.

That may be the case nowadays, but I always understood that the Americans brought in the use of airbags to try and save all those people who refused to wear seatbelts.

**rastuscat** · 22nd November 2010, 19:24

Originally Posted by MSTRS

The jury is still out on Rastuscat...

Oooooooooooo........................

Just to clarify. I'm with MSTRS.

Can anyone on KB really claim that they spend some time on the street and not see someone who deserves ticketed for something? Like, once an hour?

If so, they aren't looking.

Enough, in fact, that I don't have to make it up. Why would I, there are far more than enough to do my job without having to tell porkies.

Donuts donuts donuts.