Speeding tickets. Why the angst?

[scumdog]

A
I will continue to use the 100kph limit as an example – if when the law was introduced it was introduced and enforced that 100kph was no ticket and 101kph was a ticket we would all have known where we stood. We would have yelled and screamed but at least we would have been certain about what the rule was. .

And the irony is: That very desirable trait of 'discretion' has been indirectly responsible for a lot of the confusion. (and angst)

[Brian d marge]

As with most of the threads on KB I wasn’t going to post on this one. But…

I am of the age where I was taught that the Police deserved respect at all times.

Over the last twenty years there have been an ever increasing number of reported situations where there has been a failure by the Police to maintain the standards that I would expect the Police to maintain. Honesty, integrity and openness in particular.

A few of these situations involve the judicial system and the various processes in place in New Zealand. I accept that the Police do not control the judicial system but the Police are the public face of the judicial system.

The greatest direct contact that the Police have with the general public is in the area of roads and transportation.

In my opinion an effective law is one that is accepted by 90% of the general population and enforceable (and enforced) against the 10% that can’t or won’t accept the law.

Speeding law is one of the laws that many people break – some people more than others and to a greater degree.

Some front line Police exercise considerable discretion in the enforcement of this country’s speeding laws and some don’t. The problem is that the speeder doesn’t know which type of Policeman (or woman) is going to be doing the next stop.

So – why the angst about some speeding tickets? Simple really – getting one is like winning a negative lottery.

It is a game of chance. Complicated by some of the arbitrary numbers set as speed limits. And the perception of “a safe speed” varies from person to person. Throw in the complications from the “powers that be” that whilst the limit is 100, on a holiday weekend you’ll get a ticket at 105kph and on a non holiday weekend it will be a ticket at 110kph. But if the Police person is feeling generous even 110kph may not be enough to earn a ticket.

I will continue to use the 100kph limit as an example – if when the law was introduced it was introduced and enforced that 100kph was no ticket and 101kph was a ticket we would all have known where we stood. We would have yelled and screamed but at least we would have been certain about what the rule was. And we would have learnt very quickly that 100kph was OK and 101kph was not.

But now in reality – there are so many mixed messages out there that many people don’t believe any of the messages. And so ignore them.

Toss in some of the more radical situations involving the Police at all levels that have been reported in the recent past and in many cases the respect that the Police once had has been severely depleted.

This thread has been worthwhile and to scumdog and rastuscat in particular I say thank you for your time and efforts in trying to find the answer to a very complicated problem. Unfortunately there isn’t a simple solution.

very well said and mostly agreed with except for the point about 100kph, the information is well understood by the great Circumlocution office, and it has been implemented in Canada to a greater or lesser degree
it requires someone getting off their arse and surveying NZ roads and ,,,heres the rub ,,,making a decision

Take for example , the town speed limit 30 mph , stand in front of an M3 zephyr ( usually had 5 big cousins in side ) and your toast
stand in front of a modern end-cap 5 car and it will hurt but you will live

50 km is well fast enough in most big cities in NZ most motorists creep up to 60 ..why

because 80 % drive to the safe conditions /20% don't ... So Canada for example measured the average road speed and set it at that , and hung the odd 20 % ,,,well I might have made the last bit up

So ...lets look at the iniganagahui rd between chch and Westport ,,,,,, one corner ( from memory ) dead straight for miles and ,miles ...

surely 120km/h ? .... remembering that hitting a power pole at 99.9999999999 is probably the same result as same power pole at 120.999999999999 km/h


nope research has been done , its all been made clear , but the great Circumlocution office is forever unchanging , and the revenue gatherers must do their job, the peasants must pay more taxes and the lives of bleeding heart yard are made miserable
nowt has changed

nor will it until the couch is sold along with the xbox

Stephen

[oneofsix]

very well said and mostly agreed with except for the point about 100kph, the information is well understood by the great Circumlocution office, and it has been implemented in Canada to a greater or lesser degree
it requires someone getting off their arse and surveying NZ roads and ,,,heres the rub ,,,making a decision

Take for example , the town speed limit 30 mph , stand in front of an M3 zephyr ( usually had 5 big cousins in side ) and your toast
stand in front of a modern end-cap 5 car and it will hurt but you will live

50 km is well fast enough in most big cities in NZ most motorists creep up to 60 ..why

because 80 % drive to the safe conditions /20% don't ... So Canada for example measured the average road speed and set it at that , and hung the odd 20 % ,,,well I might have made the last bit up

So ...lets look at the iniganagahui rd between chch and Westport ,,,,,, one corner ( from memory ) dead straight for miles and ,miles ...

surely 120km/h ? .... remembering that hitting a power pole at 99.9999999999 is probably the same result as same power pole at 120.999999999999 km/h


nope research has been done , its all been made clear , but the great Circumlocution office is forever unchanging , and the revenue gatherers must do their job, the peasants must pay more taxes and the lives of bleeding heart yard are made miserable
nowt has changed

nor will it until the couch is sold along with the xbox

Stephen

To pull out one point in your reply. When speed cameras were first introduced to the land of the long white cloud the Circumlocution office decided, somewhat wisely at AA's insistence, that they only target those traveling above the 80 percentile and only be used in black spots (frequent accident areas). This was prefaced by placing signs at all the black spots to warn motorists, which also ended up warning them there might be a camera there.
Then the Circumlocution office went mad and decided cameras were no longer about road safety, though that would still be the excuse, they were now a good way to gather taxes. No longer any signs pointing out the highly dangerous areas. The cameras are now a danger in themselves, just watch the sudden slowing when one is spotted.
The only problem with the original idea was that they didn't apply it to those traveling below the 80 percentile, would have taken some extra work as the photo would have to show if they were holding up others and ticketing only to occur in cases where they were, but doable.

[ukusa]

I love speeding tickets! Why does everyone have a problem?
It's enriching to part with my hard earned, knowing it will all go towards a better cause. And I'll keep doing it, after all there are alot more needy projects out there that need my hard earned more than I do.
It's satisfying to know that i could quite possibly work for 40 hours a week, and give those earnings away to the state charity in 2 seconds of madness.
Think of the employment this creates for the country.

I've been speeding on & off for 30 years or so now. Why stop now? Maybe if they stopped the fines I may stop speeding, because then I may just have too much money. Hell, I would then have to consider giving it away overseas to some starving Africans or something.
Bring back fines for jay walking too I say.

[Zedder]

I was just reading an article from the UK on peoples' attitute to breaking the law there but which could be applied to other countries.

It stated that most people who thought of themselves as law abiding in fact admitted to breaking the law at least 7 times a week.

At the top of the list was speeding although it also included not wearing a seatbelt, parking on the pavement and things like dropping litter.

When questioned further, 58% said it was a minor infringement, 30% said they weren't bother by the fact they broke the law, and 20% didn't see it as illegal because everyone else did it.

No wonder there's a problem.

[oneofsix]

I was just reading an article from the UK on peoples' attitute to breaking the law there but which could be applied to other countries.

It stated that most people who thought of themselves as law abiding in fact admitted to breaking the law at least 7 times a week.

At the top of the list was speeding although it also included not wearing a seatbelt, parking on the pavement and things like dropping litter.

When questioned further, 58% said it was a minor infringement, 30% said they weren't bother by the fact they broke the law, and 20% didn't see it as illegal because everyone else did it.

No wonder there's a problem.

turn the attitude on its head. The people see the problem as being with these laws, they don't consider them 'real laws' and by and large they aren't. They consider they are law abiding because they don't get violent and they don't try to take other peoples stuff.

[Zedder]

turn the attitude on its head. The people see the problem as being with these laws, they don't consider them 'real laws' and by and large they aren't. They consider they are law abiding because they don't get violent and they don't try to take other peoples stuff.

But those same people still affect other citizens detrimentally.

[bogan]

But those same people still affect other citizens detrimentally.

By whose definition? Chances are if most people break the law, most people think it is a law that should not be.

[oneofsix]

But those same people still affect other citizens detrimentally.

how? if I get from A to B a bit faster how has that harmed you. Those that broke the law by speeding are talking about exceeding the speed limit not the conditions.

[Zedder]

By whose definition? Chances are if most people break the law, most people think it is a law that should not be.

So a person parking on the pavement or dropping litter doesn't affect anyone else?

[Parlane]

But those same people still affect other citizens detrimentally.

Morals are hardwired in to *most* peoples brains. The laws that follow morals are the ones we as a human race accept, the ones that aren't moral based laws are the ones we have a hard time agreeing with.

Just my 2c.

[Scuba_Steve]

So a person parking on the pavement or dropping litter doesn't affect anyone else?

Strawman? And no someone on the pavement doesn't effect me* as for drooping litter, yea but then this is about "speed", a "speeder" doesn't affect me someone going slow does.


*depends on how they've parked

[Zedder]

how? if I get from A to B a bit faster how has that harmed you. Those that broke the law by speeding are talking about exceeding the speed limit not the conditions.

You're only focusing on the speeding aspect.

[bogan]

So a person parking on the pavement or dropping litter doesn't affect anyone else?

Sure it's an annoyance to some, does that mean we should make talking loudly illegal as well? Cos that annoys a lot of people as well. Things that are simply a matter of social courtesy, should not be illegal, but we should just shun the fuck out of people who don't show such courtesy.

[Parlane]

Sure it's an annoyance to some, does that mean we should make talking loudly illegal as well? Cos that annoys a lot of people as well. Things that are simply a matter of social courtesy, should not be illegal, but we should just shun the fuck out of people who don't show such courtesy.

Something like this maybe: