Revenue gathering fuels Police chase culture - 16 dead this year
Judge pressures police over car-chase deaths
The country's top policemen were summoned to a meeting with the judge heading the Independent Police Conduct Authority following the latest police pursuit fatalities last weekend. Authority chairwoman Justice Lowell Goddard, QC, pressed Police Commissioner Howard Broad and his deputy, Viv Rickard, to continue to review police pursuit policy. The meeting was held on Monday at the IPCA, three days after two teenagers died following a police pursuit sparked by a minor offence. Their deaths brought the total this year to 16, from 11 fatal pursuits - the worst on record.
Well, well, well - what do we have here? Police apologists go into a spin whenever the death rates from Police chases are brought up, so it must be a bitter pill for them to swallow seeing the toothless IPCA demand more answers to revenue gathering chase policies which have now seen 16 dead this year.
I say toothless because the IPCA has been criticizing the revenue gathering chase policies for some time and yet are still not forcing the Police to change (with former SIS boss Richard Woods now allowed on the IPCA, I'm not surprised it is toothless). The IPCA has demanded 4 reviews in 6 years and still the Police continue to do what they like.
The politicians are no help. Crusher Collins couldn't get TV cameras down to a car crushing car yard fast enough when she got into power, increasing the bullshit boy racer crap that Labour started, Crusher has done more than anyone else to put the fear of God into young people and we see that hardline approach bear a bitter harvest. Why minor offenses need to end in death is ignored in the scramble by Police apologists to scream that the Police must chase everyone - must they? Other countries have adapted their chase policies so that only serious crime is the starting point rather than revenue gathering, as the Candor Trust pointed out on Tumeke...
The Goddard report identified that in the last 5 years almost all chase deaths started with minor infringements that would almost certainly have not ended in death with no chase. 1 in 4 chases ends with a bang. We're not talking axe murderers here - we're talking letting aome people get away with being 10k over the limit as the cops allowed before the quota software was bought in. Chase deaths happen inevitably in the first few minutes of chases as people are paniced. A 50% rise in police highway hours (funded by the revenue approach) took highway crash costs from 1.61billion to 1.6 billion - it overrode the safety savings made by a lot of safety engineering. Minister Hawkins signed off use of the quota software in 2003 explained to him by Rob Robinson as "a large increase in tickets" (meeting 30 National Road Safety Committee). The software is a prototype invented in NZ by Dr Guria and others at MoT (it sets district police quotas for drink drive busts and speed tickets) and is likely for roll out in the 2nd world under the tutelage of the new Wellington based agency Roadpol (global police under UN) which Rob Robinson heads up. 3 early reviews in 2005 found that the quota software - a formula created as part of the MOT RAM project "to develop and refine a resource allocation model for road safety" - had reverse to intended effects. It increases crash trauma as the dose of quotas rises.
...why we allow the Police to continue to use revenue gathering models to perpetrate a chase culture that is killing more and more NZers, and why the msm is silent on the issue bewilders me.
posted by Bomber @ 8:21 am
21 comments
21 Comments:
Police attempting to stop criminals who fail to obey the law is in no way linked to any revenue gathering and you are faceious and incorrect to attempt to say so. Your argument is based solely on the press release of a biased organisation which has no scientific or analytical basis.
That would be 16 people who would still be alive if the had pulled over when told to. You're blaming the wrong people, Bomber.
Anon 1 - you are wrong...
The Goddard report identified that in the last 5 years almost all chase deaths started with minor infringements that would almost certainly have not ended in death with no chase. 1 in 4 chases ends with a bang. We're not talking axe murderers here - we're talking letting aome people get away with being 10k over the limit as the cops allowed before the quota software was bought in. Chase deaths happen inevitably in the first few minutes of chases as people are paniced. A 50% rise in police highway hours (funded by the revenue approach) took highway crash costs from 1.61billion to 1.6 billion - it overrode the safety savings made by a lot of safety engineering. Minister Hawkins signed off use of the quota software in 2003 explained to him by Rob Robinson as "a large increase in tickets" (meeting 30 National Road Safety Committee). The software is a prototype invented in NZ by Dr Guria and others at MoT (it sets district police quotas for drink drive busts and speed tickets) and is likely for roll out in the 2nd world under the tutelage of the new Wellington based agency Roadpol (global police under UN) which Rob Robinson heads up. 3 early reviews in 2005 found that the quota software - a formula created as part of the MOT RAM project "to develop and refine a resource allocation model for road safety" - had reverse to intended effects. It increases crash trauma as the dose of quotas rises.
Phil - I don't think you are taking into consideration the revenue gathering models being used that generate the chases.
So I am guessing both of you think the IPCA has no right to demand a 5th inquiry into Police chases. Other countries are able to adapt their chase policy, NZ won't because it would counter the revenue generating model Hawkins implemented in 2003
More highway staff=more highway hours. This saw the lowest road toll EVER for a holiday period this year. This year will be the LOWEST road toll ever. But you conveniently disregard this fact and paint it as a revenue gathering exercise. Anything to put your warped negative anti police spin on a story aye. And the police have reviewed and altered the policy as directed; more bullshit from your oversized trap.
Please anon, you are becoming shrill and abusive, and this topic is too important for your shrill angry apologist positions. Let's recap...
The Goddard report identified that in the last 5 years almost all chase deaths started with minor infringements that would almost certainly have not ended in death with no chase.
...so the Goddard report is pretty clear that these deaths by Police chase are unacceptable.
Extra highway staff are fine Anon, it's the revenue gathering policies brought into effect in 2003 that are the problem, it is you who is conveniently disregarding this fact.
The Police have ignored real reform as the revenue gathering policies are still in effect, hence the IPCA demanding to meet again.
In your apologist world Anon it seems the IPCA are calling for these reviews for fun and not because there is a serious problem.
Serious crime: how does a cop who tries to stop a suspicious vehicle know if the vehicle is speeding off because the occupants haven't just committed a burglary, robbery, bashing, shooting, drug deal?? Your hindsight must be a beautiful thing. I suggest you give seminars on how police should know.
"The Goddard report identified that in the last 5 years almost all chase deaths started with minor infringements that would almost certainly have not ended in death with no chase"
Yes Bomber, excessive speed might be why the Police tried to pull them over, but what that quote doesn't mention is the real reason they were running, ie stolen car, burglaries, stolen property in the car, disqualified & drunk etc.
I would say that the fear of a minor infringement notice was not the real cause of any of those pursuits at all, just what attracted Police in the first place.
And the Candor trust is not credible, just look at the state of what they release, it's primary school math and english level. They just cherry pick stats, offer no alternatives, and since when did we want our Police to adopt U.S models in anything?
And someone called 'sarah' on a blog is a much better source of info than Candor? I disagree with your points sarah and I think that PICK make some solid points on the issue...
Prior to the introduction of the boy racer legislation and an experimental quota setting software package that aims to make Police "revenue neutral" Kiwi cops had a good safety record with an average of 1-2 deaths by pursuit yearly. Then all hell broke loose.
With rising quotas ACC's bill for crash injury claimants rose from 2Billion in 2002 to 7Billion, while Police pursuit deaths alongside a 400% rise in pursuits to 2000 per annum rose to the current (per capita rate) OECD leading number of a dozen odd deaths befalling runners and innocent parties per year.
Consistent with the revenue gathering approach, the police 'profile' their targets. They assess the risks in arbitrary and falacious ways. They weigh the risk of death of chasees against the risk of innocent motorists/bystanders, when in reality both risks rise as the result of chases. Their real risk is losing their credit in balancing the books.
So youngsters packed into lowslung cars on Friday nights would be the tops. Kids who sit around boozing for the barons and jump into
racy cars pushed by macho auto culture are just fair game for killer cops.
The Candor Trusts research into the quota software trial, a joint project with the Akilla Foundation spans 5 years and around 100 OIA's between us as well as incorporating info leaked (civil service jobs have been lost by sympathisers for their integrity and co-operation).
We have absolute proof of everything claimed - this is why newspapers and tv come to us.
We are the only 2 NGO's that have had full access after many requests and Ombudsmen processes to the secret per memorandum of understanding meeting minutes of the National Road Safety Committee, which discuss frankly the failures of road safety research trials (each having nice little names)conducted here on a live population. It's hair raising to read those 20,000 odd pages of drivel and reports on the trials, and Labour (the natural social justice party) is not kicking up as their hands are soooooo dirty - while the Nats have been left holding the mutilated baby.
I suspect the sell out of our population for road safety experiments was no small factor in Clarkes appointment.
Organisations without documentary proof do not get the media to so easily publicise their cries for a Royal Commission of Inquiry. If substantial change is not made based upon the obvious need from the dirt we've dug we'll move from having the top serious injury and death tolls per vehicle km in the OECD, to the top in the world safe to say. Heavy state spin has concealed a lot and lulled many onto a false sense of security. Posters do understand that if we couldn't prove our assertions they would be libellous. As a road safety charity that is chartered to work for the public good it is our role to whistleblow. TG there is a media that is interested in the facts.
We are not a lonely voice - we have strong support from several large well respected orgs so don't even go there. They have viewed the documents we want a Royal Commission to pick through and following apt analysis by PhDs etc and expressions of horror are agitating for a complete overhaul of not only chase policy but the road safety program. So apart from saying we can back everything up lets get back on topic. This reporter has done a great issue intro for anyone seeking real insight http://www.nzherald.co.nz/motoring/news/article.cfm?c_id=9&objectid=10675992
I'm kind of tending to think the police should just RPG anyone who doesn't stop. Not only would it save innocent bystanders, it would save a lot of carbon emissions.
No psycho Milyt - it is proven that enforcing the road safety rules to excess results in more not less trauma. Acquire yourself a copy of the AA publication called saving ourselves. It has nice graphs that enable deprogramming of any citizen from a decade of state propaganda about speed and alcohol and ticket serving some function. The science says not. Reality says not. BTW going OT - avoid bluebirds new paua flavour crisps.
"Why minor offenses need to end in death is ignored in the scramble by Police apologists to scream that the Police must chase everyone - must they?"
The funny thing is that these boyracing clowns are dying for nothing but an out of date rego or WOF. It's a genuine tragedy when a innocent member of the public is killed but as for these idiots who insist on running way its just natural selection at play.
The 'hard on for law and order' types are forgetting the innocent bystanders. The passengers in a fleeing car don't deserve death. Other drivers on the road don't deserve death.
Over 2000 chases a year, and 1 in 4 end with an accident. 16 deaths is just the tip of the iceberg. How many more, innocent or guilty, end up in hospital? How many have permanent injury as a result of this policy?
If you want tough, impound all the vehicles registered to the owner of a fleeing car until the driver comes forward. If the owner is under 18, then impound the vehicles of the legal guardians.
You don't have to think too hard to come up with bastard ways to be 'tough on crime' that don't involve ruining the lives of bystanders. Anybody would think that the pro chase crowd is actually taking pleasure in the deaths of young people.
Bomber, you cannot have it both ways.
"The Goddard report identified that in the last 5 years almost all chase deaths started with minor infringements that would almost certainly have not ended in death with no chase. "
MINOR INFRINGEMENTS would cover the overwhelming majority of stop and tax action by the cops.
You may have noticed that I hold no great affection for the uniformed jackals that work for the consolidated fund but blaming the cops for the deaths by darwinian self stupidity of these young twits is rather missing the point. You are basically okaying flight as a means to avoid being pulled over.
Clearly that is not working and a rethink by these youngsters might be in order.
So Bomber. Have you thought that if perhaps the police did not chase these fuckers at all, that there might actually be more people killed by these lunatics?
Perhaps the current policy is saving lives. Have you thought about that?
...it is proven that enforcing the road safety rules to excess results in more not less trauma.
A statement seriously in need of a definition for the phrase "to excess," not to mention "proven."
The 'hard on for law and order' types are forgetting the innocent bystanders.
Leaving aside the fact that expecting drivers in breach of the road rules to stop when ordered to by Police isn't the same thing as a "hard-on for law and order," we aren't forgetting the innocent bystanders. The innocent bystanders in these cases are killed by people engaging in dangerous driving. Whatever personal motives the dangerous driver may have felt for their murderous behaviour is of little relevance to the facts of the crime - which are that they, the dangerous driver, killed innocent people for no reason whatsoever.
That Wayne was disproven by 3 MoT reviews of the quota system undertaken by Dr Guria, also by content of the Breen report, was acknowledged disproven in a recent speech off shore by the ex head of the quota trial project (Economist Tony Bliss) in a lecture noting that NZ's experience demonstrated that enforcement based safety doesn't work for trauma reduction. The AA has analysed the 3 internal MoT reviews of the trial, and as a result released "saving ourselves" which among other reports was adamant the increase here in ticketing and charges has been grossly detrimental. All studies of chase policies in action overseas have concluded that allowing chases over traffic infringements nets more trauma than not. The AA has clearly stated in submissions to the Govt after in depth analyses that Police add no value to road safety status quo, and added a qualifying statement that they don't wish to upset Police but a spade is a spade. There is simply no evidence whatsoever that the quota software trial has borne fruit, there is overwhealming evidence including reviews by Police themselves that it's a killer. Sadly they're in deep. This is why a Royal Commission needs to examine all the evidence. The policy is an integral part of a revenue gathering trial has cost about 700 additional lives than would have the introduction of an alternate evidence based one in 2003. Bring on transparency. Book release soon.
There seem to be a lot of angry, disaffected and viscous people spouting off here, most of them all to eager to put the boot in!
I long for the day when the boot is on the other foot - then see how rabidly law and order you are!
"I long for the day when the boot is on the other foot " - I think even with budget cuts the cops get issued a pair of boots.
Seriously though, I was rather anti police/ law and order, while I was an unemployed pot smoking teenager.
Now that I'm a net tax paying parent I have slightly different views.
It's one thing to have lofty ideals, another to live by them, and yet another to pay for them yourself.
TM;
Anti-police is such a lame catch phrase, and is used as a defense whenever their policies and actions are questioned, its up there with antisemitism. Its desperate simplification of a complex issue...nobody here is anti police...try anti-police policy.
And who the hell is anti-law and order?
Its not about anti law and order (though we all have different ideas of what laws should exist), the issue at hand is how law and order is being implemented.
Post a Comment
<< Home