All charges dropped

[Jack Miller]

... It's law over the limit wich is easy to educate and enforce, so it's speed over the limit that gets enforced....

and this is a great pity because speed limit enforcement has had no effect on the road toll. All it achieved is poisoning those you yourself define as "law abiding" against the Police. By the Police's own statistics exceeding the speed limit is just one of many factors contributing to accidents and it is absolutely not a factor in nineteen out of every twenty accidents.

Unconstrained by the need to focus on that which will generate tickets the Automobile Association's research and conclusions are much purer. Their paper "Saving Ourselves" of September 2009 is highly instructive and free - just ask for a copy.

It reports that the average open road speed declined steadily from 102 to 97 over 8 years and the speed of the top 15% dropped from 112 to 103. However, this steady rate of decline was utterly uninfluenced by the rate of ticketing, which fluctuated wildly between 550k and 850k per year. If speeding was a disease and ticketing a proposed drug Pharmac would not fund it. In fact the complete lack of any statistical correlation is such that the drug company would reject it after the first round of trials. Pharmac would never even get to see it. The steady rate of speed-decline is more likely due to our population aging - we get more sensible and our reactions slow down as we get older.

"There is also no correlation between the decline in open road speed and a decline in injuries (because injuries increased.)" If the road toll is down it is because newer cars protect people better and medical advances have improved the efficacy of ambulatory services. People are now injured when previously they would have been killed.

So enforcing the speed limit has had no effect on speeds, which have reduced for other reasons. Reducing speed has not reduced the number of accidents. The road toll is trending down because of vehicle safety and ambulatory improvements - not speed limit enforcement.

By any rational measure issuing speeding tickets is a waste of your time and our taxes.

[Jack Miller]

Back to the original point.
Did you exceed 100 km/h?
Go on, be honest. It would be interesting to know if you are saying you were innocent, or if you are just self righteous about how you got caught.
Most of the arguing on KB is about how someone got caught.

Oh my dear Rastuscat how you disappoint me. I'd hoped you might have been a traffic law enforcer who relied on a comprehensive understanding of the law rather than NZTA slogans and other propaganda. Perhaps such enforcers don't exist. How very sad. Please read the Road User Rule. You will find a myriad of circumstances in which exceeding the posted speed limit is not illegal.

Absolutely I was innocent. I did not break any law. Presumably this was recognised by your colleagues who withdrew the charges.

For the record I was reading the road not my speedo at the time but am certain I was not traveling at 127 as was originally alleged but subsequently withdrawn.

[bsasuper]

Very good reading.No doubt the popo will claim this long weekends 4kph over limit a huge success, even though the crap weather will keep a lot of people at home.

[marty]

I fell foul of one of New Zealand's patched-up gangs a few months ago.
Like all gangs the Police has its share of good and bad members and a couple of the bad ones ticketed me at the end of a passing lane then demanded money with menace.

All gangs have their own ethics and this was in contravention of the highway robbery gang's policy that "vehicles should not be targeted within 250 metres of the finish of any passing lane"[1]

Furthermore, they deployed their RADAR in a devious way that did not give the full 3 second reading required for accuracy[2].

Finally, demonstrating the widely criticised arrogant refusal of front line members to accept any view contrary to theirs, be it from Gang HQ (which they call Bullshit Castle) or any other source,
and following the rising trend, especially amongst highway members, to ignore individual circumstances[3]
the members refused to listen to my explanation that if I had sped, which I doubted, it was because the vehicle I was passing had accelerated dangerously along with those closely following it
meaning I had not breached the Road User Rule[4]

With help from the District Court I was able to make the gang see reason and all charges have been dropped.

I considered asking the Court for a non-molestation order against the Police but decided against it. As a five year resident of Wanganui I have become used to encountering gang members in their variety of uniforms, patches, badges and other insignia. This is the first occasion on which insignia has been used menacingly, and ultimately it proved harmless.

[1] http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/...ide/index.html

[2] Police RADAR Operator’s Manual

[3] "My Individual Circumstances Were Taken Into Account... a significant decline ... most notable among those who have had roadside contact." Gravitas 2009-10 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

[4] “A person is not in breach of this rule if the act took place in response to a situation on the road not of the person’s own making ...” S1.8.1 Land Transport Road User Rule 2004

I have no affiliation to any gang.

cool story bro

[awayatc]

. Spooky really, to learn that the people who get the tickets are the people who have broken the rules.

You must be the only person on this planet who actualy believes that drivel......


The popo never get it wrong?
The popo don't hire arseholes?
The popo always get the right guy?
Objective popo can't make mistakes?
Objective popo have a cunt of a day and react accordingly........?


You are a funny guy...............

[marty]

and this is a great pity because speed limit enforcement has had no effect on the road toll. All it achieved is poisoning those you yourself define as "law abiding" against the Police. By the Police's own statistics exceeding the speed limit is just one of many factors contributing to accidents and it is absolutely not a factor in nineteen out of every twenty accidents.

Unconstrained by the need to focus on that which will generate tickets the Automobile Association's research and conclusions are much purer. Their paper "Saving Ourselves" of September 2009 is highly instructive and free - just ask for a copy.

It reports that the average open road speed declined steadily from 102 to 97 over 8 years and the speed of the top 15% dropped from 112 to 103. However, this steady rate of decline was utterly uninfluenced by the rate of ticketing, which fluctuated wildly between 550k and 850k per year. If speeding was a disease and ticketing a proposed drug Pharmac would not fund it. In fact the complete lack of any statistical correlation is such that the drug company would reject it after the first round of trials. Pharmac would never even get to see it. The steady rate of speed-decline is more likely due to our population aging - we get more sensible and our reactions slow down as we get older.

"There is also no correlation between the decline in open road speed and a decline in injuries (because injuries increased.)" If the road toll is down it is because newer cars protect people better and medical advances have improved the efficacy of ambulatory services. People are now injured when previously they would have been killed.

So enforcing the speed limit has had no effect on speeds, which have reduced for other reasons. Reducing speed has not reduced the number of accidents. The road toll is trending down because of vehicle safety and ambulatory improvements - not speed limit enforcement.

By any rational measure issuing speeding tickets is a waste of your time and our taxes.

however, upon the introduction of the Higway Patrol in the Waikato in 2000, instead of attending multiple deaths every week, and ambulance and fire being called out daily for serious, mostly speed related crashes, the amount of emergency work required by the 3 ERTs dropped dramatically. in the early days of HP, and prior to it, from a daily capture rate of 5 to 10 people over 160km/h, the capture rate not only dropped dramatically, it became unusual to get such high speeds, and captures in the 140-150k range became the norm instead.

[Indoo]

Back to the original point.

Did you exceed 100 km/h?

It doesn't really matter if he did or not, the 'safeguards' adopted are there for a good reason, such as the 5-10kmh discretion and enforcement in relation to passing lanes. The arbitary blind application of the very letter of the law is something that the public do have protection against.

[awayatc]

otherwise what would be the point of having police officers?

may as well have technology only...
(camera's, computers and robots)

[Toaster]

By far one of the most interesting threads to read in quite some time.

Good summary of the intricacies of the laws to that particular situation.

In my view and sensible outcome too.

[Jack Miller]

however, upon the introduction of the Higway Patrol in the Waikato in 2000, instead of attending multiple deaths every week, and ambulance and fire being called out daily for serious, mostly speed related crashes, the amount of emergency work required by the 3 ERTs dropped dramatically. in the early days of HP, and prior to it, from a daily capture rate of 5 to 10 people over 160km/h, the capture rate not only dropped dramatically, it became unusual to get such high speeds, and captures in the 140-150k range became the norm instead.

Now this is a challenge I must take seriously. While this anecdote does not appear to be supported by the National statistics it is a stone not to be left unturned. Can you point me in the direction of empirical data covering this situation? I would relish the opportunity to study it closely.

[rastuscat]

Cool discussion.

So, how do we enforce inappropriate speed?

It might not be over the limit, but it might be totally stupid. How do we enforce that?

How do I then convince a judge that it was inappropriate? Worse yet, how do I convince the JPs?

I know it can be done, but the process is a beast, and to be avoided. So it is.

For example, I come across an idiot riding at 70 km/h in a 100km/h zone through fog thicker than a whale omelette. I issue the ticket, coz it's bloody stupid. The ticket would be for careless driving, as it can't be for exceeding the speed limit.

The subject then posts on KB about the gross injustice of getting a ticket for 70 in a 100 km/h area. We all work ourselves into a lather about revenue collecting, and the Popos get hammered yet again. The post rolls out to 17 pages about injustice and how common sense had died.

Then I have to get in front of the JPs and convince them that it really was too fast. And the poor, poor subject prostrates himself on the altar of justice and pleads innocence because he was doing less than the speed limit.

Cool. Yeah, I need that like I need a hole in the head.

So, how do we avert this?

[Kickaha]

So, how do we avert this?

Easy, just don't issue any tickets at all, problem solved

[rastuscat]

Now this is a challenge I must take seriously. While this anecdote does not appear to be supported by the National statistics it is a stone not to be left unturned. Can you point me in the direction of empirical data covering this situation? I would relish the opportunity to study it closely.

One study to support that claim is to sit in a smoko room with HP officers who have been doing the HP job since its inception.

They'll all tell you that they find it harder to get high speeds than it used to be.

Sorry, it probably doesn't meet the academic standard you want, but that's how the real world exists. You can't reference it, word count it, or Google it, but it's true.

[rastuscat]

Easy, just don't issue any tickets at all, problem solved

Interesting theory. Drive around all day and do nothing. Cool. I'll do that.

[Kickaha]

Interesting theory. Drive around all day and do nothing. Cool. I'll do that.

You're welcome, stop in and I'll shout you a doughnut