|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Dec 26, 2014 16:22:20 GMT 12
I think they should start looking at making money from those that drive too slow. A real problem in Auckland... You should try SH2 through Wairarapa south of Mount Bruce. You have four towns with long 50km/h speed limit zones. There are also some fairly short 70km/h zones near the town limits, with the rest of the highway being 100km/h. However, the highway (and in particular between the southern outskirts of Masterton and the northern outskirts of Featherston) is full of local traffic. Basically locals who are only driving a short distance down the road and so dawdle along at 60-80km/h. No doubt each of those short-distance motorists think they aren't causing too much of a hold-up because they are only travelling a short distance up or down the highway, but all of those slow local motorists causes a huge culmulative effect on travelling times. There are only a few passing lanes along that 35km stretch of SH2, but unfortunately a lot of those short-distance slow-coaches have a habit of speeding up when they get to the passing lanes, then slowing down afterwards. Which means that to get past them on a passing lane, you effectively have to exceed the speed limit. And the revenue-gatherers (cops) have a habit of staking out the highway in the vicinity of those passing lanes and maximising their revenue-gathering in the process. I can drive a passenger train from Masterton to Featherston in a considerably shorter time than I can drive a car between the two locations, and that is in spite of the passenger train stopping at five stations between Masterton and Featherston. Well....I could cover the distance quicker in a car, but I wouldn't have a driver's licence for very long if I made a habit of it.
|
|
|
Post by kiwitone on Dec 28, 2014 16:26:35 GMT 12
this policy has the majority being watched and and borders on madness!.Yes a lower death rate is paramount,but to tell a population to be watched for one K is ridiculous... always hated that jodhpur panted swagger. Resist them ask as above...New Zealand law is based on Scots law originally and here its a big deal if stopped by police as whether they are acting as constables or as agents of the crown ..(civil matter). sitting behind tv screens and radar does nothing to promote safety...or good responses from joe public. Another one here is if they address you as "driver"...which according to their handbook means being paid or recompensed for driving and not someone going down the shop for a banana.
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Jan 9, 2015 11:53:29 GMT 12
from The Dominion Post....Police erode public faith with zero tolerance zeal“I'm sure I'm not the only one who has found the police lecturing increasingly patronising.”By KAR DU FRESNE | 5:00AM - Friday, 09 January 2015HUMAN NATURE is a perverse thing. It consistently thwarts all attempts to coerce us into behaving the way bureaucrats, politicians and assorted control freaks think we should.
Take the road toll. Since early December New Zealanders have been subjected to a ceaseless barrage of police propaganda about the futility of trying to defy speed and alcohol limits.
Stern-looking police officers have been in our faces almost daily, warning that zero tolerance would be shown to lawbreakers. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has found their lecturing increasingly tiresome and patronising.
Of course the police can claim the best possible justification for all this finger-wagging: it's about saving lives. But what was the result? The road toll for the holiday period was more than double those of the previous two years. For the full year, the toll was up by 44 on the record low of 2013.
The figures suggest that people crash for all manner of reasons, and that the emphasis on speed and alcohol is therefore simplistic. The police focus on speed and booze because these are easy targets, and when the road toll comes down they can take the credit.
In the ideal world envisaged by ever-hopeful bureaucrats, wayward citizens can be managed much as sheep are controlled by heading dogs. But people will never be harangued into driving safely; human nature is just too contrary.
Besides, police crackdowns are only one factor in achieving a lower road toll.
Improved road design, safer cars, better-equipped emergency services and more immediate medical attention all contribute too. It would be interesting to know, for example, how many lives have been saved because of the use of helicopters to get victims promptly to hospital.
Given that their heavy-handed propaganda campaign appears to have had minimal effect, I wonder if the police will now be humble enough to sit down and review their tactics.
They might also ponder the potential damage done to their public image by the zeal with which they immediately began enforcing the new alcohol limits.
It must have been like shooting fish in a barrel as they set up checkpoints to catch otherwise law-abiding citizens who had inadvertently consumed one glass of sauvignon blanc too many.
It was a formidable display of police power, but how many lives did it save? And how many of the apprehended drivers were left feeling humiliated and angry at being made to feel like criminals for unwittingly doing something that was legal only days before, and that probably posed no danger to anyone?
Police will say, of course, that they were merely enforcing the law. But there is a point at which the benefits of aggressive law enforcement have to be weighed against potential negative consequences, such as public resentment. I'm not sure our police bosses have done this equation.
Sir Robert Peel, the 19th century British politician who established the police force on which ours is modelled, established the principle that police must operate with the consent of the people they serve. Put another way, they can't risk burning off public goodwill.
Judging by public reaction to the zero tolerance campaign, as expressed in forums such as letters to the editor, talkback shows and online news sites, that's exactly what is now happening.
This is the consequence some police officers feared when the old enforcement branch of the Ministry of Transport merged with the police in 1992. They realised the negative public sentiment attached to traffic cops was likely to rub off on police. And so it has turned out.
We tend to associate the phrase “police state” with brutal fascist regimes, but the term can apply to any country where the law is enforced so zealously that it impinges on the lives of responsible citizens. It's not overstating things to suggest that our own police are in danger of slipping into that danger zone.
In November, TV3 reported that police had thrown an impregnable cordon around Hamilton's CBD on a Saturday night. No vehicle could get out (or in, presumably) without going through a checkpoint. To me, that sounds almost like a police state.
Yes, I know the object of the exercise was to catch lawbreakers, but I bet I wasn't alone in thinking we had crossed a new threshold. And I bet I wasn't alone in feeling uncomfortable at the obvious satisfaction of the police inspector in charge, who seemed to relish exerting such control over the lives of her fellow citizens.• Click on the hotlink (below) and scroll down to read the numerous comments posted in reply to this brilliant opinion piece by Karl du Fresne.www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/64786447/Police-erode-public-faith-with-zero-tolerance-zeal
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Jan 9, 2015 12:22:55 GMT 12
Yep! I read that article and wondered too how much damage the Police are doing to public support by micro-management of speeding, a tactic which has clearly failed. I had a lecture from a young-ish constable to the effect that" this is a warning for now as your licence is clean but from now on 5 k's over will be a fine". Failing to overcome my usual reticence to argue with a tax-collector, I suggested no car speedometer was calibrated as his was and that in itself was grossly unfair. I got the "when you've pulled as many people out of crashes....etc" at which point I pulled him up and told him I doubted very much given his limited experience out of Police College, that he had used as many body bags as I had, and what's more, hitting my stride, "you can't possibly lay claim to having more experience at anything than someone more than twice your age"! At which point I think he gave up. I don't feel that good at having an altercation, but I can do without sermons and lectures from 25-year-olds in police uniform.
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Jan 9, 2015 12:37:22 GMT 12
I got pinged for speeding near Ranfurly on Easter Monday last year. When I saw the cop car come over the brow of the hill up ahead, I stomped on the brakes as hard as I could and managed to get the speed down to the lowest fine (and demerit points) level by the time the cop could freeze the speed on his radar/microwave (or whatever they use these days) unit. When he approached the car, I said “What is that going to cost me? Stick it on my tab!” He rolled his eyes up and made no comment apart from what it was going to cost me. I think he may have realised from my comment that I was a “lost cause” when it came to lecturing about speed limits, etc. He just printed out the ticket, then wished me a “good day” and that was that.
|
|
|
Post by scrooge on Jan 9, 2015 12:39:42 GMT 12
'A New Zealand Transport Agency spokeswoman said there was no legal alcohol limit for cycling.' hmm, not sure if that is entirely correct- I seem to recall previous cases where a bicycle has been defined as a vehicle and speed and drink driving laws apply.
|
|
|
Post by suthg on Jan 9, 2015 13:06:44 GMT 12
Yes drunk in charge of a cycle can still apply, or cycling in a dangerous manner etc...
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Jan 9, 2015 13:42:33 GMT 12
A cycle is a only vehicle. Drink driving refers to a motor vehicle....'motor' is the key word,it has to be propelled by an engine like a car,truck,tractor,go kart,mobility scooter,aircraft on a road etc....
56 Contravention of specified breath or blood-alcohol limit (1) A person commits an offence if the person drives or attemptsto drive a motor vehicle on a road while the proportion of alcohol in the person’s breath, as ascertained by an evidential breath test subsequently undergone by the person under section 69, exceeds 400 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath.
So you cant be done for drink driving on a cycle,but you can be done for drunk and disorderly or similar type crime.
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Jan 9, 2015 13:45:22 GMT 12
Cyclists can be hard to catch though, because they can squeeze through gaps that cop cars cannot.
I did a runner from the cops once in Gisborne when I was riding a mountain bike without a helmet. There are heaps of footbridges aross the rivers in Gisborne, where a car has to go the long way around, so I made use of that situation to lose the cops.
They were trying bloody hard to catch me though, with at least two additional cop cars joining the chase, but I not only got clean away, but made it back home to my place without getting caught.
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Jan 9, 2015 15:08:47 GMT 12
But wait.......there's more! I know an elderly couple in the Hutt who ,in a case of mistaken identity, were beaten up by a gang in a home invasion. A neighbour took the vehicle number and called the police who duly took all the details and with a "we're pretty sure we'll locate them, and a "we'll get back to you", left them to the ambulance crew.Three years later and they still haven't "got back to them". Not a word! The intake to government coffers from Traffic fines meanwhile has leapt! Now what is that slogan again, the one you see on Police cars: "Safer Communities Together". I feel a Tui ad coming on!
|
|
|
Post by haughtney1 on Jan 9, 2015 18:33:37 GMT 12
So the morons in charge of road safety are now contending with a casualty level that's all ready twice the level it was last year. But don't worry, if you don't speed, you'll be fine, just do stupid things at low speed...be inattentive, be ignorant of the conditions, be tired......if you do it slower than the speed limit, you'll be fine! See if works perfect..improved safety......oh hang on a minute, twice as many are dead........"Sir Humphrey! we need some new ideas!"
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jan 9, 2015 18:44:50 GMT 12
Simple answer is to ban driving and close all the roads at Christmas time. Then people can kill each other at home.
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Jan 9, 2015 19:03:26 GMT 12
Once upon a time... police heirachy came from the ranks of real policemen, but these days they are cardboard cut-outs with MBA'a etc and more concened with career management than actually getting to grips with the problems. I have great admiration for the work the NZ Police do, but there are times when they need to revisit what the real aims and objectives are, and no matter how many times it is denied, motorists are seen as a cash cow.
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on Jan 9, 2015 19:17:45 GMT 12
Once upon a time... police heirachy came from the ranks of real policemen, but these days they are cardboard cut-outs with MBA'a etc and more concened with career management than actually getting to grips with the problems. I have great admiration for the work the NZ Police do, but there are times when they need to revisit what the real aims and objectives are, and no matter how many times it is denied, motorists are seen as a cash cow. A bit off topic ,but a number of years ago my neighbours were having an exceptionally noisy party , so I tried my luck with the "authorities " . ( but only after showing a lot of patience ) After about an hour of nothing being done ( or at least nothing working ) , out of shear desperation I called the police , and after being told they couldnt help , I mentioned the " expolsions " . All quiet in less than 5 minutes ! ( The expolsions were party goers throwing spray cans into a bonfire - hardly even as loud as the music - but some things just seem to get better attention than others )
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Jan 10, 2015 11:00:38 GMT 12
from The Dominion Post....‘Zero tolerance’ policy should be scrappedPolice's “stupid” zero tolerance campaign has “utterly failed” and needs to be scrapped, says Duncan Garner.By DUNCAN GARNER | 10:00AM - Saturday, 10 January 2015IN THE ZONE: Police aimed to crack down on drivers going over the speed limit. — KEVIN STENT/Fairfax NZ.POLICE like to roll out statistics when it suits them so here's one that hurts — 17 people killed on the roads during the holiday period.
That's more than double the death toll compared with last year.
And it's despite the police's misguided efforts to target speeding drivers with the hopelessly designed zero tolerance for speeding campaign.
It's a campaign that has utterly failed. It's a stupid policy that needs to be scrapped.
Hundreds of thousands of us will have broken the zero tolerance policy over the holidays.
Good on you. I did. It was safer to do so.
I drove the family north to the Hokianga on New Year's Eve. I found myself constantly looking at the dashboard to make sure I hadn't drifted above 100km/h. It was ridiculous. It was actually bloody dangerous, too.
At one stage, as I moved into a short passing lane, to pass a car doing about 90km/h, I put my foot down and went about 115km/h.
Now I should have been ticketed.
And I would have been if a cop had been at the end of the short passing lane — despite my very good excuse.
But I speeded up to be safer. It was safer, in that instance, to go 115km/h than to pass at 100km/h.
That scenario happened on several occasions as I drove around the North Island. I broke the law dozens of times because it was safer and responsible to do so. Going slow in the wrong places is also dangerous, which is why this campaign sent all the wrong messages.
Zero tolerance is a foolish public relations phrase that doesn't take into account the circumstances on the roads at the time.
We all must drive to the conditions and what's in front of us and behind.
A one-size fits all rule from police headquarters in advance is nonsensical.
Ticketing ordinary, decent, hardworking New Zealanders for going a few kilometres over the speed limit is nothing more than a cash grab for the Government's coffers.
Watch out for the spin in the coming weeks from Police HQ, claiming they have no idea how much money the policy raised because it goes directly to the Government.
That's bullshit. It's easy to track money and tickets. Police aren't being honest.
By all means, target the drunk drivers. It helps keep the dangerous goons off our roads.
But police need to target the real problem.
They need to stop the hooligans who drive into power poles and trees and who urinate out windows while driving (yes, it happened).
Police need to leave ordinary drivers alone and concentrate on the ones causing the most accidents.
They know who they are and where they hang out. It's not hard to profile these people.
Another problem, of course, are our roads.
They are narrow goat tracks in places, yet like the much safer motorways, they have a 100kmh open road speed limit, which is just madness.
When will that change?
The speed limit on motorways needs to be raised to 110km/h and limits on winding, narrow country roads reduced.
And some of the short passing lanes I've talked about are just death traps. They need to be scrapped or improved.
Fewer people died on the roads in New South Wales and Queensland this summer than here in New Zealand. Their roads are better.
Politicians need to return home from their long holidays and send a message to police that the campaign was crap and didn't work.
NZ First MP Ron Mark has already said it's a silly policy — he's on the money.
Prime Minister John Key needs to return home from Hawaii and send the same message.
Police aren't even sure how many of the 17 deaths this holiday period were speed-related. But a 2009 AA summary of fatal crashes states speeding isn't a major issue — yet police get away with this nonsense.
Police are picking low-hanging fruit and it's naked revenue-raising.
Officers have basically spent the summer ticketing good people for doing nothing wrong.
Sadly, making money out of road safety seems to be the priority right now.
And to me that's wrong. It's unfair on the majority of us who drive safely and carefully, if not a little quick at times.
Get the idiots, not the masses. And when they're caught, throw the book at them.
There is a now an online petition calling for an end to this zero tolerance campaign.
It has 10,000 signatures — I'm off to make it 10,001.
While I'm at it, it's well past time foreign drivers face much tougher tests before they are handed the keys to State Highway 1.
Our roads are dangerous places and they are not helping. Many of these people are causing the accidents.
If they can't pass a rigorous driving test before hiring a rental car then they should take the bus, or hire a driver for their time here.• Click on the hotlink (below) and scroll down to read the comments posted by readers in reply to this opinion piece by Duncan Garner.www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/64814946/Zero-tolerance-policy-should-be-scrapped
|
|
|
Post by suthg on Jan 10, 2015 11:47:11 GMT 12
The Police should have been advertising the use of *555 so that more real offenders can be caught with evidence and details from the much more prevalent modest careful drivers out there (you and I), who are prepared to make a judgement call on who IS dangerous and causing danger to other road users on NZ highways and regional roads.
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Jan 10, 2015 11:47:56 GMT 12
Quick Quiz:
You are a solo policeperson out to issue some traffic tickets.
Would you sooner stop: (a) A carload of Rastas stoned out of their minds on god-knows-what doing 120k in a 100kph area at two o'clock on Sunday morning on the lonely back roads of Ruatoria in an unwarranted and unregistered 70s Holden rustbucket
or (b) a bank clerk and his wife driving home along Remuera Road doing 52k in a 50kph area after bowls and a drink of lemonade at 4pm on a fine Saturday afternoon in their nicely kept fully legal 2014 Toyota Corolla ?
I know which option I'd choose, given you get rewarded with the same brownie points either way.
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Jan 10, 2015 11:57:01 GMT 12
Having done it I would go the car load of Rastas everytime.An uppity bank clerk with a snotty nosed wife would you no end of aggravation.
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Jan 10, 2015 12:30:15 GMT 12
Having done it I would go the car load of Rastas everytime.An uppity bank clerk with a snotty nosed wife would you no end of aggravation. That reminds me of a friend of mine who is a law lecturer at Victoria University who got pulled over a few years ago in Wellington by her son-in-law, who was at Police Training College at the time training to be a cop, and who was out with one of the sergeant instructors learning how to pull-over and deal with motorists. As soon as she saw who had pulled her over, she was out of the car giving Mark (her son-in-law) a heap of grief over it. The sergeant asked Mark, “do you know this lady”, whereupon he replied, “yes, she's the mother-in-law....and she's a lawyer, and a criminologist, and a law lecturer at university.” Apparently the sergeant rolled his eyes and made a comment about “difficult customers!” And as regards *555 — I dialled that number for the first time ever a few weeks ago when some dickhead driving a truck loaded with those big tall domestic cylinders of LPG drove straight through the STOP sign on a country level crossing in front of a passenger train I was driving. It was the same crossing where I had the last fatal level crossing collision a couple of years ago. Seeing those LPG cylinders passing over the crossing in front of me (I was doing about 90km/h at the time and the truck crossed the tracks about five seconds before the train passed over the crossing) really rattled me. I imagine hitting a heap of those cylinders at speed could potentially create a massive fireball. That is the sort of bad driving behaviour the cops should be concentrating on instead of revenue gathering from people who are only a tiny amount over the speed limit.
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Jan 10, 2015 14:02:28 GMT 12
|
|