Revenue collection before public safety

[Laxi]

Kind of reminds me of the time I was a victim of robbery but the only officer in town when I called 111 was determined to finish writing up the ticket for some speed offender until the 111 operator gave him a bollocking

try calling the cops because 4 guys with baseball bats are smashing crap out of the cars in your drive (mistaken identity I might add), they took 45 minutes to get here, if I hadnt set my dog on them who knows what would have happened, then they wanted to charge me with assault with a weapon

[Patrick]

I know it may seem strange, but 100% of motor vehicle fatalities in any year are speed related. If at least one vehicle wasn't travelling at some speed then the accident wouldn't have happened in the first place. The real question to be asked is "How many died in any year where at least one vehicle was exceeding the posted speed limit?

For some reason that statisitic isn't available from either the police or ACC. They both define speed related as "too fast for the conditions" even though other vehicles may be going faster without crashing.....

Just take a look at the photos of most of these scenes.... We aren't talking of moving spped, its the exceeding speed limit. The figures do speak for themselves, from the moment they targetted the 11 to 15kmph over the speed limit, the road toll fell markedly, even though the population and vehicle numbers on the roads grew. A reduction in the overall average speed limit is a reduction in dead people on the road. I don't have a problem with that.

Like most other normal employees in a run-for-profit organisation you are hired on a monthly salary with a specific job description in mind and you are very rarely, if indeed ever, encouraged to "think outside the box".

Sound about right?

This is by no means to take a dig at you personally - but how often haven't we heard the nice officer say "Yeah I know it's silly, but I don't make the rules I just enforce them."?

Nothing is ever the same in this job. It sure as hell aint run for profit. You gotta think outside the box every time or else you won't survive. Sound about right? Nope.....

As for enforcing the rules, well, ummm... yeah... that is what we do...?

And no personal dig taken (or given)....

try calling the cops because 4 guys with baseball bats are smashing crap out of the cars in your drive (mistaken identity I might add), they took 45 minutes to get here, if I hadnt set my dog on them who knows what would have happened, then they wanted to charge me with assault with a weapon

Your dog is lucky. You were too, once they could have finished the dog off, that might have pissed em off a bit and you would be next?

But you have my condolences... makes me wonder what the hell some are thinking out there, looking at you as the bad guy. PC and common sense do not go well together.

[Indoo]

The LTNZ ie government fund the traffic police, dictating how many hours the Police have to do etc and what resources are poured into it, its a contract afaik and if the Police don't meet what is demanded they don't get the resources.

Its was also our government who dictated that the vast majority of the 900 or so new cops would be community ones, rather than frontline and responding to jobs such as 4 people at night smashing up cars. Cops on the frontline work their arses off esp when compared to certain other areas within the Police, taking the frustration out on them is a bit redundant given who is is that dictates where the resources go.

[jrandom]

Once it's been through the system you can drip it up, you can't do that with instant fines.

You can if you just wait out the initial two months without paying it, so long as you're prepared to accept an additional charge on top of the fine when it's transferred to the court system for collection.

[Jantar]

Just take a look at the photos of most of these scenes.... We aren't talking of moving spped, its the exceeding speed limit.

Not so. Its too fast for the conditions that contributed to the accident, then its the actual rate of speed change (decelleration) at the point of impact that contributes to the extant of the injuries. But what about the root cause of the accident in the first place?

The figures do speak for themselves, from the moment they targetted the 11 to 15kmph over the speed limit, the road toll fell markedly, even though the population and vehicle numbers on the roads grew. A reduction in the overall average speed limit is a reduction in dead people on the road. I don't have a problem with that.
....

From the moment that the speed limit was raised from 80kmh to 100kmh the fatality rate started to fall. It continued to fall as vehicles were made safer with crumple zones, airbags etc. It fell because fewer accidents were happening at high speed which may have been partly due to the greater amount of enforcement, or it may have been due to drivers paying more attention to the road.

Patrick, you and I are aiming for the same overall objective; fewer fatalities and serious injuries. Its just that I prefer to find the primary causes of accidents and target that area to prevent accidents from happening in the first place ,whereas the police appear to target the effects of accidents and say that its OK to have accidents, but lets keep the effects to a minimum.

When there are so many road safety initiatives happening at once it is difficult to pinpoint any single one and say what effect that particular initiative is having.

[MSTRS:Me]

Not so. Its too fast for the conditions that contributed to the accident, then its the actual rate of speed change (decelleration) at the point of impact that contributes to the extant of the injuries. But what about the root cause of the accident in the first place?


From the moment that the speed limit was raised from 80kmh to 100kmh the fatality rate started to fall. It continued to fall as vehicles were made safer with crumple zones, airbags etc. It fell because fewer accidents were happening at high speed which may have been partly due to the greater amount of enforcement, or it may have been due to drivers paying more attention to the road.

Patrick, you and I are aiming for the same overall objective; fewer fatalities and serious injuries. Its just that I prefer to find the primary causes of accidents and target that area to prevent accidents from happening in the first place ,whereas the police appear to target the effects of accidents and say that its OK to have accidents, but lets keep the effects to a minimum.

When there are so many road safety initiatives happening at once it is difficult to pinpoint any single one and say what effect that particular initiative is having.

You make very good points. I guess without knowing the number of accidents as a percentage of the vehicle fleet, any other statistics (such as actual deaths) are slightly meaningless. I mean, there are those that say the death rate in the 80s and 90s was fairly constant, but only as a number...as a percentage of the fleet it was falling anyway. Was that because of better vehicle design or increased use of seatbelts or initial effects of the 'speed campaign' or or or ?
The only thing that we can be certain of is that the outcome of an accident is likely to be less severe if impact speed is less, regardless of any other measures.

[peasea]

You can if you just wait out the initial two months without paying it, so long as you're prepared to accept an additional charge on top of the fine when it's transferred to the court system for collection.

I didn't realise. However, which would produce the most paperwork? Surely going the whole hog with a defended hearing would win hands down wouldn't it? I love it when screeds of paper comes through the letterbox, it gives us something to light the fire with.

[peasea]

PC and common sense do not go well together.

How can you say that? You don't even know me.

[_STAIN_]

The LTNZ ie government fund the traffic police, dictating how many hours the Police have to do etc and what resources are poured into it, its a contract afaik and if the Police don't meet what is demanded they don't get the resources.

Its was also our government who dictated that the vast majority of the 900 or so new cops would be community ones, rather than frontline and responding to jobs such as 4 people at night smashing up cars. Cops on the frontline work their arses off esp when compared to certain other areas within the Police, taking the frustration out on them is a bit redundant given who is is that dictates where the resources go.

Yeah right, the government said go out and ticket 500 speedsters in North Canterbury as fast as you can or you will loose you funding, just ignore accidents and public safety over the busy Easter Weekend.
Nice to see that the community may get some resources kerbing Theft, Street Assault, Tagging, Domestic Violence and Home Invasion.

[Patrick]

The LTNZ ie government fund the traffic police, dictating how many hours the Police have to do etc and what resources are poured into it, its a contract afaik and if the Police don't meet what is demanded they don't get the resources.

Its was also our government who dictated that the vast majority of the 900 or so new cops would be community ones, rather than frontline and responding to jobs such as 4 people at night smashing up cars. Cops on the frontline work their arses off esp when compared to certain other areas within the Police, taking the frustration out on them is a bit redundant given who is is that dictates where the resources go.

These new "positions" (from existing staff????) can't be used to attend jobs - and they only work 8am til 4pm weekdays only.

Not so. Its too fast for the conditions that contributed to the accident, then its the actual rate of speed change (decelleration) at the point of impact that contributes to the extant of the injuries. But what about the root cause of the accident in the first place?

Two cars doing 100 head on is a mess. 2 cars doing 110 head on is a bigger mess. 2 cars doing 140 head on... see where this is going?

From the moment that the speed limit was raised from 80kmh to 100kmh the fatality rate started to fall. It continued to fall as vehicles were made safer with crumple zones, airbags etc. It fell because fewer accidents were happening at high speed which may have been partly due to the greater amount of enforcement, or it may have been due to drivers paying more attention to the road.

This is true. But then it raised again... so something else was tried. They brought in the 11-15kmph over the limit tagetting, and its falling again.

Patrick, you and I are aiming for the same overall objective; fewer fatalities and serious injuries. Its just that I prefer to find the primary causes of accidents and target that area to prevent accidents from happening in the first place ,whereas the police appear to target the effects of accidents and say that its OK to have accidents, but lets keep the effects to a minimum.

As I said earlier, or in another thread just recently....(???) times are a changin...... Targetting areas prone to crashes is exactly where things are heading.

When there are so many road safety initiatives happening at once it is difficult to pinpoint any single one and say what effect that particular initiative is having.

True. But having a crack at any and all of em has gotta be a good thing in the end. Time will tell.

How can you say that? You don't even know me.

PC? Is that you??????

Yeah right, the government said go out and ticket 500 speedsters in North Canterbury as fast as you can or you will loose you funding, just ignore accidents and public safety over the busy Easter Weekend.

And how meany deaths occurred in North Canturbury?

Nice to see that the community may get some resources kerbing Theft, Street Assault, Tagging, Domestic Violence and Home Invasion.

Been told they can not be used to be sent to jobs. Unsure what the community is actually getting..... One less snake perhaps?

[Jantar]

From the moment that the speed limit was raised from 80kmh to 100kmh the fatality rate started to fall. It continued to fall as vehicles were made safer with crumple zones, airbags etc. It fell because fewer accidents were happening at high speed which may have been partly due to the greater amount of enforcement, or it may have been due to drivers paying more attention to the road.

This is true. But then it raised again... so something else was tried. They brought in the 11-15kmph over the limit tagetting, and its falling again.

I only have the data up to 2007, but from the time that the speed limit was raised in 1986, there was a very slight increase in 1987 as drivers had to relearn to judge the higher speeds, then the fatality rate has dropped evry year since. Where exactly is the point that you claim it raised again?

Number of
Fatalities
Per 10,000
Vehicles

1981 3.6
1982 3.6
1983 3.4
1984 3.4
1985 3.7
1986 3.8
1987 3.9
1988 3.6
1989 3.6
1990 3.3
1991 2.9
1992 2.9
1993 2.7
1994 2.5
1995 2.5
1996 2.2
1997 2.3
1998 2.1
1999 2.0
2000 1.8
2001 1.7
2002 1.5
2003 1.6
2004 1.5
2005 1.3
2006 1.3
2007 1.3

[MSTRS:Me]

... I guess without knowing the number of accidents as a percentage of the vehicle fleet, any other statistics (such as actual deaths) are slightly meaningless. ...

.
Number of
Fatalities
Per 10,000
Vehicles

1981 3.6 ... falling year by year ... 2007 1.3

What about being able to compare the actual number of accidents? Is that falling too? Somehow, I doubt it.

[peasea]

What about being able to compare the actual number of accidents? Is that falling too? Somehow, I doubt it.

You have to get it in perspective. Jantar has a point with the "per 10,000" thing. There will always be fatal accidents (sadly) when vehicles are operated by humans, humans make mistakes etc. So the true yardstick is "per" whatever figure of vehicles are on the road.

The 'real' road toll has actually dropped over the years (per machine on the road) and much of that is down to belts, air bags and crumple zones.

[Jantar]

What about being able to compare the actual number of accidents? Is that falling too? Somehow, I doubt it.

The data came from the Ministry of Transport 2008 report. It doesn't give the number of accidents, only injuries and fatalities.

The raw number of fatalities went from 669 in 1981 to 442 in 2007, while the number of vehicles on the road went from 1,848,600 to 3,189,100.

[MSTRS:Me]

I understand, Jantar. As a percentage, deaths are falling, but because of increases to the fleet. The actual number of deaths remains somewhat constant (at around the high 300's?). My point is that doesn't tell us whether there is a corresponding drop in the percentage of accidents (injury/fatal/other).