Revenue gathering Police chase policies must be stopped
So the latest Police Chase that ends in killing people, (that’s 12 deaths in 10 months if any of you were counting), has been connected to revenue gathering chase policies that have seen a massive jump in the number of fatalities since the chase for revenue policies were adopted in 2005 when Labour were managing rednecks rather than challenging them.
To have so many NZers die in Police chases to satisfy revenue gathering policies is one thing, but to have Crusher Collins pop onto the telly to tell boy racers it’s not worth racing off from Police is surely the second most hypercritical political performance since David Garrett.
Crusher Collins couldn’t get TV cameras to a car crushing yard fast enough to show how tough on boy racers she would be, now her harder line is bearing dead bodies, she wants to rescind the car crushing bullshit for a hug and a ‘please stop embarrassing my hardline revenue gathering chase policies by dying in such great numbers’.
Hardline law and order policy is starting to be shown up for the counter productive, knuckle dragging, talkhate radio kneejerk bullshit it always was, and Crusher Collins wants to be Hugger Collins now. I don’t think Crusher Collins crocodile tears will be able to wash the blood away caused by Police chases for revenue.
posted by Bomber @ 7:28 am
13 comments
13 Comments:
You are right. She is fucking useless. But I would not expect any better from anyone else in parliment either.
How about you outline some policies on traffic policing you would like to see.
Show us that you have positive ideas and not just criticism.
Sweet.
Next time I drive drunk, I will just speed off, so the police won't chase me.
And to all those people who say "just take his rego", so what?
The police have to prove beyond doubt that it was me who was driving my car.
If they can't prove it, they can't convict me.
So, if they change the law to stop police chases, I now can do what I want on the roads confident that not a court in the land will convict me on the basis that someone, not neccessarily me, was driving my car.
As I said, sweet.
the registered owner of the car HAS to name the driver when asked to by the cops or else
Greg O'Conner (Police union spokesman?) fucks me off every time I hear him say (to paraphase) "6 Cops shot by firearms in the last 2 years, we need guns!"
Vs
15 (by my count) people killed in the last year (half the time) in police chases.
I'm not blaming the Police, but they are involved with these crashes and look to see what they could do better so less people are dying on the roads, wheather in police chases or not.
HDS
the registered owner of the car HAS to name the driver when asked to by the cops or else
Or else what anon?
Anon @ 1.55
"the registered owner of the car HAS to name the driver when asked to by the cops or else
Or else what anon?"
Or else the cops will charge the owner for obstruction of justice, lying to the cops, or they will just say they identified you, the owner (even if they didn't).
If you think the cops will not lie to charge someone who they believe are lying, then you have too much faith in the police....they do it all the time.
Promoting the idea that drunks will decide to drive, then run from the cops is nothing short of an attempt to create a moral panic....unless of course you have some proof?
Even if people do run, how many will get away completely free?....Maybe 10...or 20....that seems like a fair trade if it saves the (about) 15 deaths that have resulted from chases in the past year.
What price do you put on a dead person?
For me, even if 1000 got away, 15 prevented deaths is still worth it...by a long long way.
Your logic is amusing.
Or else the cops will charge the owner for obstruction of justice, lying to the cops, or they will just say they identified you, the owner (even if they didn't).
Oh.
You mean fatty that it is a crime not to name the driver of your car?
Like it is a crime to run from the police.
Irony much?
Promoting the idea that drunks will decide to drive, then run from the cops is nothing short of an attempt to create a moral panic....unless of course you have some proof?
If police decide to stop chasing people, then that is your proof right there.
If you don't have to stop, and you are doing something illegal, then you won't stop.
Even if people do run, how many will get away completely free?....Maybe 10...or 20....that seems like a fair trade if it saves the (about) 15 deaths that have resulted from chases in the past year.
Of course it's a fair trade.
I now get to drive drunk, fully aware that if I get pulled over, I just have to drive off.
What price do you put on a dead person?
Emotional blackmail fatty?
So, fatty.
What price do you put on law and order.
Since we aren't pulling over drink drivers anymore, what do you think the road toll will look like?
For me, even if 1000 got away, 15 prevented deaths is still worth it...by a long long way.
Try arguing without emotion fatty.
I leave the emotional spin to the Sensible Sentencing Trust.
Your logic is amusing.
At least I am using logic fatty.
You are using pure emotion.
As an aside fatty, should we have the death penalty?
I mean, Grahame Burton wouldn't have killed that guy if he had been executed the first time.
What was that about what price you put on a dead person fatty?
The problem with your logic 'anon' is that it's more Police apologist spin than real opinion.
No one is saying that 'crims' should just be allowed to do what they like, only the most stupid of anonymous posters would assume that is where this criticism of revenue gathering chase policies is going.
Australia, Canada, the United States, they have all adopted stricter chase policies so that Police discretion is not allowed to endanger lives on the roads. Your idiocy that current criticism of the revenue gathering chase policies adopted since 2005 insinuates we want to allow crims to be free to drive off is so simplistic it is beneath comment.
The revenue gathering chase policies which see more and more NZers dying must be changed and that change of policy doesn't mean we want criminals to get away, it means we want safer chases within much stricter guidelines and the incentive for revenue gathering must be removed. To purposely misconstrue these criticisms as wanting crims to rule the roads is simply beneath my time to bother entering into a debate with you anon.
Your idiocy that current criticism of the revenue gathering chase policies adopted since 2005 insinuates we want to allow crims to be free to drive off is so simplistic it is beneath comment.
Yet that is what you are arguing for.
The police cannot charge someone for a crime if they are not properly identified, thankfully.
If you drive off, and are not identified, you cannot be prosecuted.
So, bomber, how do you stop people driving off, if you don't chase them in the first place, and can't arrest them once they have sped off?
it means we want safer chases within much stricter guidelines
FFS!.
What does "safer chases" actually mean?
Look, I understand that a life is not worth no rego, but once the public know that police chases will no longer happen, then what do you think will happen to law and order on our roads?
If there is no need to stop for the police, you won't. Simple.
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.
The advice to Police was to ignore the reviews results and try to believe in the system. Lucrative to 1 billion a year but atop the deletierious effect on public safety it's cost ACC bad - its bill for crashes rose from 2 bill iin 2002 to 7 billion today. This is a disastrous trial and a Royal Commission over chases is needed to expose it and bring the policy writing criminals to justice. Remember a third of chase deaths befall innocent parties - the quota software has Police bowling kids on crossings! All this issue of tickets outside schools when the only real injuries to kids have been caused by Police racing - chases are actually illegal as noone including Police is immune from traffic law unless there is urgent need to break it like having a baby. Ticket issue isn't urgent as acknowledged in most sane countries restrictive chase policies. More follows
Keep in mind the human face to our Polices poor statistics - http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/RIP-Jaycherree-Penelope-Makakea/155486111146228?ref=tsIf people got away from the law on minor offences because a modern non confrontational chase policy was adopted it's not the end of the world - forces with restrictive policy say the right move was made as they have far less mayhem and manslaughter to clean up. They can then get on with real policing like rape and murder investigations which strain current resource. Homicide is reduced which has to be intelligent. In fact its a myth of redneck forces that if we let them go everyone will try it on. Most people pull over, and in fact numbers of runners didn't increase in the studies that have been done.
And the harm from those who do run is greatly reduced. Our website references several studies on the links page showing that the right decision for crash reduction is to avoid speed chases of drunks and indeed all traffic offenders. PICK group
http://preventinsanechasekillinggroup.yolasite.com/
Thats why the Candor Trust and PICK is speaking out. Police can't moan about drinks causing a toll when they are per all evidence and science increasing victim numbers by stupid non evidenced based methodology. The public needs to realise that wild west policing produces wild west results. Overseas its been found that once a public is educated chases for non violent offences are no longer tolerated.
Once they do this alternate policies to chases are rolled out. As I said on telly yesterday but hadn't time to expand there are many options unlike in the movies. Firstly flag chases over offences that won't as likely end in a crash as a chase and chases in built up areas and prohibit chases of people looking like youth especially with passengers who have no vote in driver actions. This needs the quota software down at MoT (also NZIER seems to have input we think) to be sledge hammered and the resource allocation model project to be cancelled by Ministerial intervention.
Secondly make the best effort to hold flight people responsible but realise a cost of safety is that a few fish may slip the net - the Ozzies are starting to use starchase which is a gps dart fired at cars and monitored by internet so they can be doorknocked while alive later. UK cops use automatic number plate recognotion the same way. Second disallow close proximity chases where a chase looks essential based on best evidence from studies not just on cops gut feeling (its wrong and why discretion ha ben removed in safety valuing lands) - keep out of sight and have spikes laid ahead if there is an imminent danger and someone needs catching eg a person weaving over centreline much at speed in a pre chase period. Third policy addressing offender deterrence doesn't work on global evidence so don't even waste legislators time going there. Thereason they are running more now is both the quota software making more police hunt tickets more of the time AND THE
INCREASED FEAR OF CAR CONFISCATION bought in by boy racer laws. It's time to apply some common sense and evidence guided solutions.
Anon;
"You mean fatty that it is a crime not to name the driver of your car?
Like it is a crime to run from the police.
Irony much?"
No irony at all, you are comparing a crime that endangers nobody, with a crime that endangers innocent bystanders....irrelevant.
"Emotional blackmail fatty?"
No again...isn't this argument about deaths from car chases? So of course it will be emotional...blackmail? -No.
"Try arguing without emotion fatty."
Sorry, innocent dead people tend to get me emotional.
"At least I am using logic fatty.
You are using pure emotion."
Wrong again....my logic is in reference to what happens when a cop starts chasing....that being a high chance of a crash that can involve innocent people.
Your logic is that if cops don't chase, people will just run.
Firstly, I don't believe it to be true cause you have given no evidence.
Secondly, it is possible to have a very high arrest rate without chasing.
Thirdly, people are already running and a chase means it lasts longer and two cars become probable weapons.
Allow me to put your next three statements one after another....no need to add my bit after, I couldn't make you look more stupid if I tried. Cheers.
"I leave the emotional spin to the Sensible Sentencing Trust."
"As an aside fatty, should we have the death penalty?"
"I mean, Grahame Burton wouldn't have killed that guy if he had been executed the first time."
The parallel to drug policy is, well just as blindingly obvious to everyone except those who are paid to either ignore, spin or directly benefit. Both target youth, involve clandestine and covert ops where Police lie to convict and otherwise manufacture the very alienation they set out to solve. Look up definition of 'deviancy amplification' and pretend if you can we are not our own worst enemy.
Crusher Collins and her political minions are no friend of public safety, community well-being or your taxable income.
Post a Comment
<< Home