Are the police starting to stumble in the right direction?

[oneofsix]

So speeding, running red lights and not giving way are low level? Whats the serious stuff - rego run out maybe

Speeding isn't listed either way;

ON NOTICE

* Possible written warning:
* Careless driving
* Failing to keep left
* Unsafe changing of lanes
* Failing to give way
* Operating a moving vehicle with insecure load

No warning:

* Drink-driving and drug-driving
* Reckless or dangerous driving
* Careless driving causing injury or death
* Racing, exhibition of speed and sustained loss of traction offences (boy racer offences)
* Driving while disqualified, suspended, revoked or contrary to limited licence.

Speeding should depend on circumstances, 111 on a desert straight highway 60k past a school at 15:30

[Scuba_Steve]

ON NOTICE (Possible written warning)
* Careless driving
* Failing to keep left
* Unsafe changing of lanes
* Failing to give way
* Operating a moving vehicle with insecure load

No warning:
* Drink-driving and drug-driving
* Reckless or dangerous driving
* Careless driving causing injury or death
* Racing, exhibition of speed and sustained loss of traction offences (boy racer offences)
* Driving while disqualified, suspended, revoked or contrary to limited licence.

I notice omitted from the list is "speeding", rego & WOF and to be honest all the "on notice" offences are ones the cops don't currently enforce (at-least not to a decent level).

[p.dath]

What do we want from the public roading network? I know what I want. I want to be able to use it without experiencing death. I also am not prepared to accept the cost or loss of liberty from having a zero death toll - so I accept some people are going to die, just hopefully not me today (call me selfish). And because cost is an issue for me, I only want so much resource applied to it, and I accept that resource is only going to get me so much of what I want.

I also want the roading network to be predictable, both in design and by the people using it.

So when making decisions I have to ask myself does the "decision" reduce the chance of death or improve predictability of road use.

To achieve this we need rules. Form here I see a couple of issues. Those that don't give a stuff about the rules or others, and for which the rules mean nothing. Giving these road users fines will have no impact. Those that know about the rules, but choose to only comply with the ones that they like (punitive punishment like fines and warnings are likely to help here), those that comply with everything like it is a religion (fines and warnings are like to have little or no impact). And lastly, those that aren't capable of complying with the rules, either through inattentiveness or lack of skills (no amount of fines or warnings will help, only education).

Accident statistics show the biggest group, by far, that have accidents are those caused by driver error (the last group). So this trial will be addressing the smaller of the big accident groups. Still worth considering though, just we shouldn't expect a big change as a result.

Assuming little is currently done about low level non-compliance of the road rules, because of limited Police resource, I am of a mixed reaction about the decision to give warnings. If the people would have been pulled over anyway, and the warning achieves the same result as a fine (as in, changes their behaviour to make them more predictable) then its a god thing, as it has reduced the cost of achieving the predictability I would want from road users.

If giving out the warning only consumes what would have been idle Police time then I'm also in support. We have already met the cost of the resource, and are only improving predictability of road use through verbal warnings.

HOWEVER, if that same Police resource would have instead been used pursuing something more serious, such as a drunk driver, and that Police resource was unable to pursue that more dangerous behaviour that could result in death, because there were on the side of the road giving out a warning then I would not be so happy.
Only someone in the industry could give a gut feel to this one. I think you need to speak to experienced patrol offices to get a feel for this, and it may well change from region to region.

So I find myself in support of doing a trial, to see what happens, but I would also want to make sure that more serious offending was still being processed - and evidence that it was not working would be that ticket rates for such offences were reducing (because the Police were too busy giving out warnings). And this is the bit that really scares me. It is likely that rates of ticketing for more serious driving offences dropping would probably be mis-construed as evidence that the trial was working ... when in fact it may be having the opposite effect.

So yes, giving out warnings will be a popular decision. Yes it will help with Police PR. Yep, I say lets give it a trial. But lets be very careful what we infer from the results - particularly ticketing rates, as the same result could indicate two completely different but opposing issues.

[Marmoot]

NOT ... "as of right" ... (a bit like the 4km/hr tolerance)

It's been and gone. Back to 10 now.

[FJRider]

It's been and gone. Back to 10 now.

The Easter bunny will be back too ... they'll probably arrive about the same time.




Any bets against ... ???

[scumdog]

Bull shit,,,they could always give warnings,,,if they wanted to.
Just public relations,,nothing more.
Same old money gathering shit heads that hid behind mommys skirts an got picked on at school.
POPO ???,,,,,who's bright idea was it for put a pig on line using black gangsta slag to talk about himself ,,,,,get that idea from one of ya' new south african recruits did ya' boys

You're really not very bright are you...


And I doubt if you're smart enough to be a troll.

[scumdog]

HOWEVER, if that same Police resource would have instead been used pursuing something more serious, such as a drunk driver, and that Police resource was unable to pursue that more dangerous behaviour that could result in death, because there were on the side of the road giving out a warning then I would not be so happy.
Only someone in the industry could give a gut feel to this one. I think you need to speak to experienced patrol offices to get a feel for this, and it may well change from region to region.


So yes, giving out warnings will be a popular decision. Yes it will help with Police PR. Yep, I say lets give it a trial. But lets be very careful what we infer from the results - particularly ticketing rates, as the same result could indicate two completely different but opposing issues.

We already give heaps of warnings - this might mean the warning takes another two minutes.

And at least the "Oh officer, this is the first time I've ever been stopped and I've never done this before and won't do it again" types will be able to prove they've never been stopped/done it before...won't they???

[imac]

...

Those that don't give a stuff about the rules or others, and for which the rules mean nothing. Giving these road users fines will have no impact. Those that know about the rules, but choose to only comply with the ones that they like (punitive punishment like fines and warnings are likely to help here), those that comply with everything like it is a religion (fines and warnings are like to have little or no impact). And lastly, those that aren't capable of complying with the rules, either through inattentiveness or lack of skills (no amount of fines or warnings will help, only education).

Accident statistics show the biggest group, by far, that have accidents are those caused by driver error (the last group). So this trial will be addressing the smaller of the big accident groups. Still worth considering though, just we shouldn't expect a big change as a result.....

.

Broadly agree with that however my non scientific, observational based opinion is that many driver errors are because the driver has no fucking idea that they are doing something dangerous to themselves or more importantly other road users. An official warning may well address that.
All in all, a good move from Popo

[Usarka]

We already give heaps of warnings - this might mean the warning takes another two minutes.

Dear Officer Scumdog,

Apparently you have given warnings in 10% of cases stopped for speed related offenses. That is far in excess of performance targets and you need to reduce this number by x.

Failure to comply will result in your suspension from the wednesday shared donut morning tea.

Regards
Mr Police Boss

[p.dath]

Broadly agree with that however my non scientific, observational based opinion is that many driver errors are because the driver has no fucking idea that they are doing something dangerous to themselves or more importantly other road users. An official warning may well address that.
All in all, a good move from Popo

I think it was the AA survey that found 88% of motorists think they are above average drivers. So yes, about 1/3 of drivers think they are "good", when in fact they are below average. But do remember, 50% of all drivers will always be below average - by definition.

However I don't believe a warning will fix "driver error". A warning fixes something you know you are doing wrong, but can't be bothered (like indicating a lane change, stopping at a red light, etc). Will a warning help someone who can't remember to indicate a lane change? Not sure. Depends on why they can't remember.
It doesn't fix something when you think you are doing it right (like all the drivers who think they are above average when they are not). For example, if a driver thinks they are safe going around a corner at 120 (weather it is safe or not is irrelevant), then getting a warning is probably not going to change their behaviour, as they will believe they are in the right.

[scumdog]

However I don't believe a warning will fix "driver error". A warning fixes something you know you are doing wrong, but can't be bothered (like indicating a lane change, stopping at a red light, etc). Will a warning help someone who can't remember to indicate a lane change? Not sure. Depends on why they can't remember.
It doesn't fix something when you think you are doing it right (like all the drivers who think they are above average when they are not). For example, if a driver thinks they are safe going around a corner at 120 (weather it is safe or not is irrelevant), then getting a warning is probably not going to change their behaviour, as they will believe they are in the right.

Ah well, after that at least they can't whinge their arses off that they haven't been warned...

[SPman]

(as in, changes their behaviour to make them more predictable) then its a god thing,

No good trying to bring religion into it.......

[Usarka]

However I don't believe a warning will fix "driver error". A warning fixes something you know you are doing wrong, but can't be bothered (like indicating a lane change, stopping at a red light, etc).

A warning helps fix the people who have a momentary lapse. The usually law abiding person who has a run in with the law and gets a fair cop - it reaffirms their perception of the cops.

[Tony.OK]

How about getting rid of the warnings and stupid speed cameras and having cops sit at roundabouts and ping every dick that doesn't know how to indicate or when to give way etc
HB is shocking and am expecting it to get even worse once the new (old) rule change comes into play.

[Scuba_Steve]

However I don't believe a warning will fix "driver error". A warning fixes something you know you are doing wrong, but can't be bothered (like indicating a lane change, stopping at a red light, etc). Will a warning help someone who can't remember to indicate a lane change? Not sure. Depends on why they can't remember.
It doesn't fix something when you think you are doing it right (like all the drivers who think they are above average when they are not). For example, if a driver thinks they are safe going around a corner at 120 (weather it is safe or not is irrelevant), then getting a warning is probably not going to change their behaviour, as they will believe they are in the right.

what a warning will do (provided they actually go after these people) is inform the ignorant that there is laws against holding people up, you must keep left unless overtaking etc laws people are unaware exist.
As for the others (indicating, lane changes etc) we might find people will start doing what their supposed to as the reason they're probably not now is "no-ones watching" once they're aware someones watching behavior may change