All charges dropped

[scumdog]

For what it's worth if the police made the 2 second rule law (assuming it's not because virtually no-one seems to pay it any attention!) then people would have room to react to speed. If they added to that people actually using their bloody indicators before starting to manouver then it would rule out far more. Start a campaign with half a dozen cop cars doing a loop of the motorway enforcing those rules for a while, as well as stamping down on other careless activity and perhaps it would ripple out slowly.

They had make an exception for motorcyclists then - otherwise HEAPS of bikers would be getting pinged.

[Beren]

Maybe you are a perfectly capable rider, but your licence-class says you are not. And yet you 'berate' the police for not doing more about the multitude of other-than-speed offences out there.

Perhaps I didn't say clearly enough, that since I am on L plates I would expect to get stopped. Please don't worry about making an invalid point having not read my post though.

I didn't think I was 'berating' the police as you put it. I was trying to suggest something else that I think they could do to make the roads safer. I would love there to be a target for police to give out more dangerous/reckless driving tickets than any other, so that they have a clear emphasis on what they are trying to achieve. Not sure if it is workable - but I think it would certainly not do their PR any harm!

[Beren]

They had make an exception for motorcyclists then - otherwise HEAPS of bikers would be getting pinged.

There is almost always at least a 2 second gap in the traffic I could get through though

Actually sarcastic comment aside I think that as a rule we damn well should be keeping safe distance from the cages we all think are dumb, blind, mobile road hazards. Other than immediately before overtaking I keep to at least 2 seconds 95% of the time. (I sure aint perfect but I do try and walk what I talk!)

[MSTRS:Me]

I was trying to suggest something else that I think they could do to make the roads safer.

I cherry picked parts of your post to illustrate that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...
I agree entirely that there is too much emphasis on the speed thing. It is just so easy for them to 'get a result' tho...don't have to be right on the spot to catch someone. Most other traffic offences, one has to be right there and looking at said vehicle's movements to pick up on the offence. It is strange how most drivers know the rules when a cop is right there.

[Beren]

I cherry picked parts of your post to illustrate that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...
I agree entirely that there is too much emphasis on the speed thing. It is just so easy for them to 'get a result' tho...don't have to be right on the spot to catch someone. Most other traffic offences, one has to be right there and looking at said vehicle's movements to pick up on the offence. It is strange how most drivers know the rules when a cop is right there.

Yup was highly amusing this morning, there was a patrol car going over the bridge and I was one of at least 6 bikes sitting a few car lenghts behind him waiting for him to pull off before continuing to split... which goes to show that we all think the lanes are probably a bit tight to split going over the bridge - yet we all do it every morning!

[oneofsix]

Yup was highly amusing this morning, there was a patrol car going over the bridge and I was one of at least 6 bikes sitting a few car lenghts behind him waiting for him to pull off before continuing to split... which goes to show that we all think the lanes are probably a bit tight to split going over the bridge - yet we all do it every morning!

In that case it is not necessarily a case of knowing the rules more a case of not wanting to put up with the :BS: should your passing him hurt the olice: ego.

[scumdog]

It is strange how most drivers know the rules when a cop is right there.

Or don't as the case may be - like when people try to give way to a cop car when it's sitting at a Stop sign...or people that come to a complete stop at a Give Way when they see a cop car nearby - even when it's the only car in the vicinity and they don't have to give way to it...

[oneofsix]

Or don't as the case may be - like when people try to give way to a cop car when it's sitting at a Stop sign...or people that come to a complete stop at a Give Way when they see a cop car nearby - even when it's the only car in the vicinity and they don't have to give way to it...

Hope it doesn't cause you to spill the coffee.
I love the 3 lane hold ups, cop doing 95 in left lane but everyone too afraid to pass. All 3 lanes clear in front of the cop.

[Jack Miller]

Charges being dropped does not mean "Nothing illegal" took place ... just means some piss-ant bleater is not worth chasing through the courts ... taking officers off the road ... for a measly few hundred $$$ in fines ...

Nonetheless, I didn't break the law. But if your comment is true it betrays yet again that the traffic police really don't care and can't be bothered - they just want easy revenue. Surely "piss-ant-bleaters" who actually do drive illegally are the ones you want to prosecute most! Are you telling me the Police don't care about justice and simply give up if it gets a bit hard?

[MSTRS:Me]

Or don't as the case may be - like when people try to give way to a cop car when it's sitting at a Stop sign...or people that come to a complete stop at a Give Way when they see a cop car nearby - even when it's the only car in the vicinity and they don't have to give way to it...

Ah - you're talking about the ones that Darwin forgot. The missing link. Yea - they're out there too...

[rastuscat]

Nonetheless, I didn't break the law. But if your comment is true it betrays yet again that the traffic police really don't care and can't be bothered - they just want easy revenue.

Hi Jack. Cringe. Did it again. Here comes the hostess with her handcuffs.

Cool that you didn't break the law. It means you shouldn't have had the ticket.

Keep not breaking the law, thanks. Best way to avoid tickets.

I saw a guy drive through a red light once, he denied it and called me a lying, revenue collecting bastard. Questioned my motivation, and if I was in the right job. Wanted me to wear glasses. Wrote a letter to that effect. Wanted me sacked, wrote to my boss, the whole nine yards. Probably got onto a web forum somewhere and bitched about revenue collecting snakes. Probably had a thousand replies about all the injustice of the world, and how the cops are all corrupt scum.

Thing is, I had it on video. Fair and square F110 (red light offence).

Now, we can't always do that for practical reasons, but it was sweet showing him the video, and watching him eat humble pie.

[Beren]

Now, we can't always do that for practical reasons, but it was sweet showing him the video, and watching him eat humble pie.

That's Beautiful. Completely getting one over on someone is pretty damn awesome.

[Jack Miller]

Why haven't you? (taken up a career in traffic enforcement)
- you certainly seem to know how and which the laws SHOULD be enforced..

The simple answer is because traffic enforcement has no significant impact on road safety so I wouldn't be interested.

The longer answer is:
If they offered me the top Traffic job I'd be into it. Anything other than the top job would be too constrained by current policy & culture, which are misaligned. However, before I took it on the superiors in Govt & the Police would have to have a change of attitude and my role, which I'd relish, would be to implement the change. The result would be a 75% cut in the traffic enforcement budget with an equal cut in enforcement activity. Only those that got their heads round the new direction would get to keep their jobs.

The other thing the superiors would have to agree to is to spend the 75% (at least) on initiatives that will actually improve road safety, but it would not be in the Police budget. The key initiatives would be
1. Self explaining and forgiving roads (Google it)
2. Replace all speed limits (that imply the limit is always safe) with speed zones like the existing LSZ but with a nominal "good conditions" speed that can be exceded up to say 40% when overtaking but must also be decreased up to 40% in fog/hail/snow/congestion...

There is plenty of detail I could provide and this also needs more thought. But since this thread has strong elements of speed and passing lanes, here are a couple of examples:

* Size & space the dotted white lines so that they are always flashing past at the same frequency if you are travelling at the nominal speed for the zone. i.e. the dashes are shorter and closer together in Urban zones and longer & further spaced in Rural zones. Then delete all the speed limit "target" signs. This would cost nothing - the lines are already being painted. In fact it would save a lot of signage cost.

* Repaint passing lanes so the left lane is narrower (to stop people speeding up subconsciously because they feel safer just when everyone behind them wants to pass.) Make the overtaking lane wider. Close up the dotted lines marking the left lane. Space out the dotted lines marking the passing lane. Align incoming traffic to the left lane but make exiting from the left lane a dog-leg reminding the impeders to let past all those who have accumulated behind. This would also cost nothing.

As you can see, this has nothing to do with Policing, which is appropriate because Policing has been proven to have no effect. Road safety initiatives that have actually worked are:
1. Vehicle improvements (eg; It is only a matter of time before we will be able to buy helmet-mounted accelerometers that will detect head-nodding, and cameras monitoring the rider's eyes detecting that myopic "glased state" both of which indicate a tired inattentive rider, and raise an alarm. These systems will be available in cars too. As another example, some cars already have RADAR-based blind spot monitors, which is good for us riders.)
2. Road improvements (Rumble strips, roadside hazard removal, etc...)

[rastuscat]

Whoa Jack, hold the phone.

Good that you have not applied for the job. You have some great theoretical ideas, but the job exists in the real world, not an ideological one.

I like some of what you've suggested, and it proves that you've given it some thought.

My problem is that I have the actual job, and have to comply with actual rules, actual law, our actual environment. Actual donuts too, but they're all good.

A safe system is what you are talking about, and no, it isn't much to do with the police. It's largely engineering and education based, and we do the enforcement. Out of interest, NZ is heading that way, but we still have a long, long way to go.

So, in summary, you want all the good ideas implemented, and to be able to drive as if they have been but now, before they are implemented.

Implementation would cost more than the recent earthquakes. Notably, if everyone wore seatbelts tomorrow and from then on, it would do a lot of good but cost nothing. If everyone didn't use cellphones while driving, it would save a life occasionally at bugger all cost.

See, overnight things could improve, if everyone looked into a mirror and realised that they are the one person with the absolute most ability to improve their own safety. Take personal responsibility, drive to the actual environment, the one that actually exists.

Now, THERE'S a wish list.

[Jack Miller]

I keep reading how we are so focussed on speed. About how we do all we can to write every speed ticket we ever can.

That's because it is just about all we see on TV and on the road. Still you make a point and that impression could be wrong, so my next piece of research will be an Official Information Act request to Paula Rose for the ticketing statistics or better yet, resource allocation. i.e.; how many enforcement hours are spent enforcing each of; speed limit, give-way / stop, alcohol, keep left, indicate, etc. If she can't provide enforcement-hours then number of tickets for each category would do. Perhaps you can save me the trouble. What percentage of traffic tickets are issued for exceding the speeed limit?

If you want to put me in a group, call it the D&F & restraints group. Basic, roadcraft offences.

Sorry if I appeared to be attacking you personally. If you are capable of seeing a vehicle passing a queue in a passing lane without immediately jumping to the conclusion that the passing vehicle is at fault, but are just as likely to conclude the vehicle leading the queue is an impeder, and you are prepared to pull it over & issue a ticket then you are not part of the problem I found myself forced into fighting. In that case, please don't take it personally.

Of course, if other's following the thread are pure speed limit enforcers, then they should take it personally.