Why not just use rocket propelled grenades on fleeing drivers?
Jail touted for cop-chase first timers
Drivers who flee from police patrols could face a jail term even if it is their first offence. The prospect of routine imprisonment looms after 16 people died in police pursuits last year.
WTF? I read this and spilled my coffee choking, how in good gods name would throwing first time fleeing drivers into prison stop or deter panicked drivers from fleeing even faster? Did I fall asleep and wake up in Paul Henry World? All this would do is ensure more fleeing drivers, you would think after the embarrassing Judith Collins car crushing crap that the Government wouldn't want to add extra incentives to flee the Police and would instead start listening to the numerous and numerous and numerous reports from the Independent Police Complaints Authority criticizing Police chase policies.
Why don't they just give the Police bloody rocket propelled grenades to fire at fleeing drivers, it would probably have less of a kill rate than the current Police policy.
Let's remind ourselves of what the Candor Trust had to say about the revenue gathering requirements and how they impact chases...
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 Aime 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.
... I always counter that other countries have adapted their Police chase policy, yet we don't, so what does an American police expert think of our chase policy...
Geoff Alpert, a consultant to police in North America, described New Zealand's approach as out of step with a trend to restrict chases to violent offenders.
Discretion had been "restricted drastically" in much of the US and Canada because of the the number of fatalities and the enormous expense arising from pursuit crashes, Dr Alpert told the Herald in September.
Public opinion in the US had swung away from pursuits of minor offenders because of the number and severity of crashes.
....by continuing with a dangerous revenue gathering chase policy coupled with car crushing crap by Crusher Collins we are willingly allowing people to die from flawed social policy for minor crime...
Minor crime led to all killer chases
All police chases which led to a record 14 deaths this year were sparked by minor offences, rather than serious crimes. Figures released to the Herald under the Official Information Act show only one of the nine pursuits followed "suspected criminal offending" and that was minor a laser being shone at traffic from a motorway overbridge.
This isn't being challenged because of our blind devotion to the Police that believes anyone questioning the Police is a gang member.
UPDATE First road death of the year, and it's a kid fleeing Police....
Death after police pursuit
The holiday road toll stands at 13, the same as last year, following two fatal crashes in Auckland overnight.
In the first fatal police crash of the year, a vehicle failed to stop for police on Karangahape Rd about 12.50am, before speeding off on to the Southern Motorway.
Police said the chase was abandoned after the vehicle reached an "unacceptable speed".
The fleeing vehicle was later found further up the motorway near the Market Rd off-ramp, where it had hit a power pole. The 15-year-old driver died while a passenger is in a serious condition.
...one gets the feeling that 'chase abandoned' moments before the driver dies is a euphamism the way 'friendly fire' is.
posted by Bomber @ 9:44 am
34 comments
34 Comments:
Strangely enough, most people faced with the situation are able to discover within themselves the level of emotional strength required to face the terrors of being given a ticket for driving 10 km/h over the limit, without fleeing in 'panic.'
Drop the pretence. The munters who kill people while fleeing from police are fleeing because they have actual reason to flee - the car's stolen, they're driving dangerously, they're disqualified from driving, their car's unregistered and unwarranted, they have unpaid fines, they have a warrant out for their arrest, they're shitfaced drunk, etc - there's a big list and the killers pretty much always tick a few of the boxes on it. They aren't suffering 'panic' because the scary police officers might give them a $60 fine, they're evading apprehension for worse offences. Slapping a jail term on them for gratuitously endangering other peoples' lives on top of all that other shit they're up to seems entirely reasonable.
"All this would do is ensure more fleeing drivers, you would think after the embarrassing Judith Collins car crushing crap that the Government wouldn't want to add extra incentives to flee the Police."
Nothing in this post explains why the extra incentive to flee given greater punishment outweighs the extra incentive not to flee given the greater cost of punishment.
Overall, however, I think incentives will be left unchanged as the policy has no effect on the probability of being caught/crashing. There are a lot of studies showing that people react much more strongly to changes in the probability of a cost occurring than changes in the cost itself. Hence, the increased punishment is unlikely to lead to the effects that either you or Collins are suggesting.
i'm sorry James, walk me through this, young spooked driver initially panics and races off thinking Judith will crush his car and once he has made that decision he now knows he's going to prison so stopping once he has embarked on this dangerous course means he's going to prison regardless?
Yeah, it's a fucking hard one to piece together there.
I'm sorry psycho what part of 'minor crime' didn't you comprehend?
Minor crime led to all killer chases
All police chases which led to a record 14 deaths this year were sparked by minor offences, rather than serious crimes. Figures released to the Herald under the Official Information Act show only one of the nine pursuits followed "suspected criminal offending" and that was minor a laser being shone at traffic from a motorway overbridge.
Your claim is police propaganda used to justify their revenue gathering systems that have led to this massive jump in police deaths - look I realize you law and order raw meat rednecks want public floggings back, but social policy that is leading to 16 deaths a year has clearly fucked up, and when there are alternatives to these revenue gathering systems to prevent chases, we should use them.
I suppose psycho that the numerous reports put out by the IPCA criticizing police chase policy is just more political correct blah blah blah right?
Take the blinkers off mate.
No need to panic - Collins is history, we all have big pre election plans for her, but we couldn't go full frontal. Hey what damage control spin agency does Doc Hairy Duynhoven, Prof Corbalis and other opinion shapers hang out at? Why has she got a venison ragout waiting at Garths, g-strings or army issue and many other questions await?
I'm sorry psycho what part of 'minor crime' didn't you comprehend?
I comprehend it, I just don't accept it has any relevance - because it has none. If you respond to attempts to stop you from committing a minor offence by comitting a way more serious offence, the responsibility is 100% yours, not those who wanted to impose a fine on you for the minor offence.
I suppose psycho that the numerous reports put out by the IPCA criticizing police chase policy is just more political correct blah blah blah right?
Pretty much. If the people running the IPCA think the best approach for the Police to take is to just not try and apprehend people for minor offences, they should be sacked and replaced with more competent personnel.
I just don't accept it has any relevance
The fact that it was minor crime, chased because of a system that places quotas on Police that lead to 16 deaths is irrelevant?
Well that explains the Psycho name I suppose. I'm not suggesting that it isn't the fault of the idiot clown who races off, I'm not defending their response, I am saying that the policy is exacerbating this, we have fired up young men behind the wheels and they are responding badly.
There are alternatives and these are not being looked at. As for your claim that the IPCA is somehow the new politically correct stormtroopers of the dykeocracy, you do realize that Richard Woods, the man who wrongfully kept Ahmed Zaoui in solitary confinement for 10 months sits on this group right? Claiming he is somehow a politically correct loon is like suggesting Paul Henry is a socialist humpty dumpty.
I'd love to hear why you think the IPCA are so wrong in criticizing Police chase policy.
Look, we can't have a lawless society, and police need the powers to do their job BUT there are better methods to deal with fleeing drivers that don't end in death, your position seems to be 'if you flee, you deserve death' - that simply isn't an adult response.
I wholeheartedly agree that we will surely see an increase in fleeing drivers if the consequences are so called 'harsher', but I do agree with confiscating their cars on a 'three strikes your out basis' or depending on the actual offence itself.
However, do these cars really need to be crushed? Is this not a hideous waste? In this day and age of ever growing landfills and an imminent 'Wall-E' type scenario where we all have to flee the Earth because of our careless money grubbing wastage and lack of forethought for the environment, surely these cars could be recycled?? I.e. dismantled for parts etc?
The fact that it was minor crime, chased because of a system that places quotas on Police that lead to 16 deaths is irrelevant?
It would be relevant if it were as you describe, but the offenders aren't chased because of a quota system, they're chased for failing to stop, which is a significant offence. It is that significant offence that "leads to 16 deaths," not any minor offences, police policies or quota system.
...I am saying that the policy is exacerbating this, we have fired up young men behind the wheels and they are responding badly.
I've yet to see a credible argument for how the policy exacerbates this. On the other hand, changing the policy to one of not pursuing offenders who flee would exacerbate the problem in a fairly obvious way - by providing a strong incentive to flee. The fact that we have fired-up young men behind the wheel is exactly the problem, and leaving them to go about offending untroubled by law enforcement isn't really a useful solution to that problem.
I'd love to hear why you think the IPCA are so wrong in criticizing Police chase policy.
1. Because all they're doing is encouraging offenders to drive dangerously.
2. Because their recommendations amount to demanding the police avoid pursuing and apprehending a whole category of offenders.
3. Because 1 and 2 only make the roads even less safe than they are now. Most of us want petrolhead losers taken off the roads, not left to continue their offending in peace.
It would be relevant if it were as you describe, but the offenders aren't chased because of a quota system, they're chased for failing to stop, which is a significant offence. It is that significant offence that "leads to 16 deaths," not any minor offences, police policies or quota system.
Incorrect, you haven't been paying attention...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.
And they are minor offences Psycho, you may have missed this from the deceptive title of this news story...
Minor crime led to all killer chases
All police chases which led to a record 14 deaths this year were sparked by minor offences, rather than serious crimes. Figures released to the Herald under the Official Information Act show only one of the nine pursuits followed "suspected criminal offending" and that was minor a laser being shone at traffic from a motorway overbridge.
...Psycho all you've done is regurgitate what Howard Broad had to say in the weekend papers, at least invoice them at the end of the month for services rendered.
I've yet to see a credible argument for how the policy exacerbates this.
It's that lack of reading comprehension again, let me restate young spooked driver initially panics and races off thinking Judith will crush his car and once he has made that decision he now knows he's going to prison so stopping once he has embarked on this dangerous course means he's going to prison regardless?
On the other hand, changing the policy to one of not pursuing offenders who flee would exacerbate the problem in a fairly obvious way - by providing a strong incentive to flee.
And yet other countries have modified their chase policies and they are able to catch criminals without the massive loss of life. I'm not suggesting we let criminals off the hook, I'm suggesting we look at alternative so that the increasing number of NZers don't die needlessly on our rods. Your position is still, 'they fell they deserve to die' - this is childish in the extreme.
The fact that we have fired-up young men behind the wheel is exactly the problem, and leaving them to go about offending untroubled by law enforcement isn't really a useful solution to that problem.
Yes fired up young men who think they're car will be crushed and NOW are told that in that initial panic there is no point pulling over as they will certainly go to jail.
Your love for counterproductive policy suggests some deep flaw in our education system.
But your attempt to explain why the IPCA needs to be disbanded is the cheery on the top...
1. Because all they're doing is encouraging offenders to drive dangerously.
No, they are critiquing flawed policy that has seen 16 NZers dead, there is no intent to encourage dangerous driving, that is such a misrepresentation of the facts I would have to conclude you are either smoking meth or have run out of weak justifications and are now simply scraping the bottom of the barrel.
2. Because their recommendations amount to demanding the police avoid pursuing and apprehending a whole category of offenders.
Is that what Geoff Alpert, a consultant to police in North America is suggesting Psycho? Really? Christ this is desperate.
3. Because 1 and 2 only make the roads even less safe than they are now. Most of us want petrolhead losers taken off the roads, not left to continue their offending in peace.
Yes, we want safer roads, but this isn't the way to bloody well do that.
Perhaps you need to keep the blinkers on, it at least gives you an excuse.
You seem to be struggling with basic logic. Here's some assistance:
1. The existence of a quota system doesn't in itself mean that a quota system leads to fleeing drivers killing people. You would have to come up with some causal mechanism for it - a causal mechanism more convincing than the rather obvious competing one, ie that an individual driver's decision to drive dangerously results in death.
2. The fact that some drivers make a decision to drive dangerously to try and avoid being apprehended for a minor offence doesn't tell us anything about how whether we should attempt to apprehend people for minor offences or not. As an analogy, if an offender decided that shooting people was a good way of avoiding being apprehended for breaching a liquor ban, this would tell us nothing about whether enforcing the liquor ban was a good idea or not.
It's that lack of reading comprehension again, let me restate young spooked driver initially panics and races off thinking Judith will crush his car and once he has made that decision he now knows he's going to prison so stopping once he has embarked on this dangerous course means he's going to prison regardless?
So, why does this innocent young driver think that Crusher's going to take his car? Because he was doing 10k over the limit? I don't think so. Like I said, the drivers who flee the police generally have a string of offences they don't want to have to discuss. Look at the petrolhead losers who've actually killed people in the last year, and you find that although the cops may have become interested in them for a "minor offence," their reason for fleeing was anything but minor - stolen car, disqualified driver, drunk driver, all kinds of shit that they should no way have just been left to carry on with. Your blather about the poor, innocent young driver having a moment of panic covers just about nobody involved.
Is that what Geoff Alpert, a consultant to police in North America is suggesting Psycho? Really?
Yes, really. If you have a more accurate description of what he's suggesting, I'd be interested to hear it.
1. The existence of a quota system doesn't in itself mean that a quota system leads to fleeing drivers killing people. You would have to come up with some causal mechanism for it - a causal mechanism more convincing than the rather obvious competing one, ie that an individual driver's decision to drive dangerously results in death.
But we know that his quota system HAS in fact led to more deaths and more police chases since it was created, so that is the evidence you are ignoring.
2. The fact that some drivers make a decision to drive dangerously to try and avoid being apprehended for a minor offence doesn't tell us anything about how whether we should attempt to apprehend people for minor offences or not. As an analogy, if an offender decided that shooting people was a good way of avoiding being apprehended for breaching a liquor ban, this would tell us nothing about whether enforcing the liquor ban was a good idea or not.
By enforcing Police to chase people for 10ks over the speed limit is in itself contributing to the deaths. Using an analogy of people shooting others to escape drink bans doesn't escape the point that it is the Police seeking to drive NZers into crash situations for minimum offences.
So, why does this innocent young driver think that Crusher's going to take his car? Because he was doing 10k over the limit? I don't think so.
He thinks that because Judith couldn't get a tv camera down to a car crushing yard fast enough, I'm sure you applauded her scare tactics at the time and now wish to distance yourself from her impacts, how convenient.
Like I said, the drivers who flee the police generally have a string of offences they don't want to have to discuss. Look at the petrolhead losers who've actually killed people in the last year, and you find that although the cops may have become interested in them for a "minor offence," their reason for fleeing was anything but minor - stolen car, disqualified driver, drunk driver, all kinds of shit that they should no way have just been left to carry on with. Your blather about the poor, innocent young driver having a moment of panic covers just about nobody involved.
What proof of this high and mighty statement do you have?
Yes, really. If you have a more accurate description of what he's suggesting, I'd be interested to hear it.
Jesus Christ Psycho, I thought you had all the answer matey, that NZ Police were by simple fact of being the NZ Police were using the highest chase standards on the planet and could not be faulted in any way shape or form.
Seeing as you hilariously think the IPCA is a politically correct body who should all be sacked, you are incapable of questioning Police tactics. I'm assuming you didn't hear Geoff Alpert on Radio NZ being interviewed about the alternative chase techniques other Police departments around the world were adopting then?
I'm teasing, there's no way based on your absurd comments regarding the IPCA that you would ever listen to Radio NZ eh Psycho?
A veritable catalogue of logic failures. Further assistance:
...we know that his quota system HAS in fact led to more deaths and more police chases since it was created...
Correlation doesn't equal causation. Assuming the increase has occurred since the introduction of a quota system, that's still a long way from demonstrating the quota system caused the increase. Presumably the has also occurred since the introduction of the latest model Commodore, for example. We can certainly say that the number has increased since the Police started dropping pursuits. In other words, you need some evidence for the assertion of causality.
By enforcing Police to chase people for 10ks over the speed limit is in itself contributing to the deaths.
This doesn't follow - in fact, it's an impossibility. I've been given tickets by the Police for speeding, and the question of whether there would be a chase or not was solely up to me - the Police involved had no say in the matter at all, for the obvious reason that once I pulled over a chase was physically impossible. There's no obvious way in which this could be different for other motorists.
He thinks that because Judith couldn't get a tv camera down to a car crushing yard fast enough...
He was observant enough to notice Crusher playing this up on the news, and yet didn't think about whether such punishments were likely to be handed out for a minor speeding infringement? Really? Further: despite the fact that subsequent inaction has demonstrated that this was straightforward publicity-seeking by Collins, he successfully maintains a state of abject terror at the prospect? It's really not very plausible, is it?
What proof of this high and mighty statement do you have?
A quick Google offers:
Ricky Allan Forbes: dangerous driving and failing to stop.
Unnamed, Chapel Rd Auckland, Dec 2010: stolen car.
Phillip Bruce Ray Bannan: disqualified driver.
Tama Regan Dobson: disqualified driver, overloaded car, warrants out for his arrest.
Martin Dillon: unlicenced driver.
Little mention of killers who were only speeding, as far as I could see.
Sorry, forgot one more glaring failure of logic:
Seeing as you hilariously think the IPCA is a politically correct body who should all be sacked, you are incapable of questioning Police tactics.
The "false dichotomy" - one either backs the IPCA in all instances, or has no basis for questioning Police tactics. It's obviously wrong - in fact, I'm willing to bet you've disagreed with the IPCA yourself on occasion, yet still feel entitled to question Police tactics.
Re Alpert, I didn't hear him speaking on RNZ but have read media reports of his views, and what he's asking for is that the Police cease pursuing offenders who fail to stop unless there's evidence of serious offending. If there is some sense in which that doesn't mean "avoid pursuing and apprehending a whole category of offenders," you haven't made it obvious.
The "false dichotomy" - one either backs the IPCA in all instances, or has no basis for questioning Police tactics. It's obviously wrong - in fact, I'm willing to bet you've disagreed with the IPCA yourself on occasion, yet still feel entitled to question Police tactics.
You are the one who was agreeing that the IPCA is in some way a politically correct body, I was appointing out that the appointment of someone like Woods ridicules that assertion, when they criticize they should be listened to because they are so pro-Police all the bloody time!
Your attempt to twist that into some bizarre argument of logic is tedious.
Correlation doesn't equal causation. Assuming the increase has occurred since the introduction of a quota system, that's still a long way from demonstrating the quota system caused the increase. Presumably the has also occurred since the introduction of the latest model Commodore, for example. We can certainly say that the number has increased since the Police started dropping pursuits. In other words, you need some evidence for the assertion of causality.
Oh, it's all some fantastic magical coincidence that the death rate climbs right when a quota system with a ridiculously low trigger threshold gets implemented - I'm sorry, it's the cars is it? The point overseas Police forces have moderated their chase policies and have managed to lower the death rates in combination with our own ridiculously pro-Police IPCA's rare criticism and it's the bloody Holdens fault? Not any inch of ill trained over hyped Police jumping at every low threshold event?
I see. That's a magical place of pure logic you live in there Spock. Well done.
This doesn't follow - in fact, it's an impossibility. I've been given tickets by the Police for speeding, and the question of whether there would be a chase or not was solely up to me - the Police involved had no say in the matter at all, for the obvious reason that once I pulled over a chase was physically impossible. There's no obvious way in which this could be different for other motorists.
What's this I've fallen into? Why it's a black hole because you seem to have warped time here, the chase doesn't begin when you drive off, it happens when the Police decide to start a chase. You start the blame before the event that triggers it.
You need to invent a time machine first Spock.
He was observant enough to notice Crusher playing this up on the news, and yet didn't think about whether such punishments were likely to be handed out for a minor speeding infringement? Really?
Umm, have you visited Earth? Yes, young men with their brains wired to adrenalin pumps and moments of flight or fight panic without much fucking forethought Spock. You know, that very same demographic who die so often because they do dumb things? Your statement seems very far removed from reality.
Further: despite the fact that subsequent inaction has demonstrated that this was straightforward publicity-seeking by Collins, he successfully maintains a state of abject terror at the prospect? It's really not very plausible, is it?
Yes, because that age group are certainly vast news consumers aren't they? The 6pm news leading crushing, front page bullshit was a far larger story than the subsequent small story in page 5 of the Herald, and your hope is that jumpy reactive age demographic who are notoriously hard to reach would have kept up to date with the latest current affairs?
And you had the audacity to claim a veritable catalogue of logic failures you green blooded hob-goblin.
A quick Google offers:
Ricky Allan Forbes: dangerous driving and failing to stop.
Unnamed, Chapel Rd Auckland, Dec 2010: stolen car.
Phillip Bruce Ray Bannan: disqualified driver.
Tama Regan Dobson: disqualified driver, overloaded car, warrants out for his arrest.
Martin Dillon: unlicenced driver.
Little mention of killers who were only speeding, as far as I could see.
And you left the ugliest till last.
I see.
They're crims so they don't count right Milt?
Even if the ill trained pumped up Police are using feather trigger threshold responses caused in part by flawed policy towards a risk taking age group who react rather than thinking that is criticized by the normally pro-Police IPCA while other Police forces around the developed world have modified their chase policy, EVEN IF ALL OF THAT IS TRUE - they're just dirty crims and they deserve to die don't they Milt?
Crime hits mostly at the poor and brown
More than half of all the crime in New Zealand falls on just 6 per cent - just over one in 20 - of the adult population, a survey shows.
And if you're a young, poor, brown city-dweller, you're much more likely to be a victim of crime that an old, rich, white person living in the country.
Crime impacts and is perpetrated most on the poor, it is the fear of the middle classes that drive raw meat law and order and who develop fetish punishment desires for those they consider unpeople.
Bomber no cars have been crushed and no boyracers are doing runners because they fear car crushing, infact they know the law is weak in that regard.
Go and look at all the incidents almost all of them involved disqualified, drunken, stolen cars, criminals on the run or fleeing crime scenes, not a single one was a young driver simply 'panicking' over a ticket.
You need to start backing up your claims with some facts. Perhaps start by explaining how a quota system encourages Police to chase and if its all about revenue gathering why on earth would they worry about stolen cars and the like which result in crashes that cost them millions.
For all the bombast, I'm still not seeing anything to persuade me that ordinary young drivers are living in terror of having their cars crushed for a minor speeding offence.
I'm sorry, it's the cars is it?
I used the example of the cars because it's so obviously ridiculous I thought you might actually grasp the point behind it. Clearly that was too much to hope for.
...the chase doesn't begin when you drive off, it happens when the Police decide to start a chase.
Certainly, the Police could simply sit, watch offenders leave and take no further action. As a taxpayer, I'd be reluctant to pay them to do this, and according to the Dom Post survey, most others feel the same way. Do you have some concept of what the purpose of a police force actually is, or is it just a kind of fantasy bogey man for you?
They're crims so they don't count right Milt?
Do you actually read any of this? I've been pointing out from the first comment on this thread that the people who end up killing themselves and others trying to evade police pursuit are generally not ordinary motorists panicking over a 10k speeding ticket, but people who are attempting to evade apprehension for offences more serious than speeding. You demanded evidence for that, and I provided it. Any comment on the evidence you requested, other than the above drivel?
That said: no, I don't have a lot of respect for someone who considers killing others a small price to pay for avoiding facing up to a driving while disqualified charge. Why exactly would you find that surprising?
Bravo Bomber. You've done good, as they say. Police worship is endemic here in NZ. And my sister works for them (civilian staff), so she should know. And most of them are frighteningly dumb.
They killed themselves with their stupidity. Blue and red lights mean stop. They didn't deserve to die as you imply some of us think, but they are idiots.
I rarely agree with you on these sort of matters Bomber, because you are very good and evading personal responsibility and blaming things on the system.
People who always blame the system make me wonder (but only for a second) why I studied hard, work hard, obey the law (well, 99% of laws)and generally try to make myself a contributer to society, while others sit back, bludge, steal and blame others.
My guess is whoever crashed and killed themself this morning was a loser going nowhere, someone with no self control, greedy and selfish (it said in the herald that he stole a car- a car someone better than him had worked their ass off for no doubt) and someone with no respect for law and order. Well guess what- he fucked up, majorly.
Another thing that should be noted is that many of these crashes are happening within the first minute of a pursuit starting or after it had been abandoned. Which even the most stringent pursuit policy short of not allowing Police to attempt to pull over any suspicious cars, would be unable to prevent.
I guess we could stop Police from attempting to pull over vehicles in the first place, as we know that they will take off at speed and kill themselves even if the Police aren't behind them.
The views expressed here are ill informed especially psychomilts - diametrically opposed to reality much as is exposed in overwhelming studies. Repeated studies show that highly restraining chase policies do not result in more people having a go, and DOES result in GREATER chances of catching people as the unchased target is a slower vehicle & more easily tracked by various subtle methods to destination. Repeated successful stories in countries that have restricted policies do not show that heavy chase restrictions make the roads more unsafe - quite the reverse they become much safer as adding a common pursuit element raises the crash risks phenomenally for all, when targets are any others than the most lunatic drivers. Most disq drivers aren't acting looney until chased which hugely ups their risk to the Public. Chasing is not the answer to them (vehicle sanctions are).It is a tiny minority who are initially chased for dangerous or reckless driving. People do not run out of any lack of respect for the law, they run due to fear of the law (cops are scientifically proven more likely to beat runners says the latesrt Police training manual) and other more silly brain farts, 90% of wannabe Houdinis are not guilty of any serious offence that would necessitate instant imposition of public life threatening enforcement measures; such as the ill conceived chase engagements we see knocking kids off school crossings, motorcyclists off as ticket issuers do u turns etc. I hope psycho milt gets his hands on the bona fide studies rather than persisting with the kneejerk emotive driven milt brain self referencing system he uses - and does so fast before his primary age kid or granddad becomes the latest fair game colateral damage because he believes crime will flourish if Police can't act all boss hoggish. Predators need not be cheetahs to catch their quarry - brains can trump brawn. The big diff between Milt and the IPCA is that it spent months reading and learning from better performing countries so made educated recommendations. Smokescreens set up in mainstream media by spinners have pushed a lot of garbage that flips the conventional wisdom accepted overseas on its head - leaving the Kiwi public so full of chase myths it can't even get to step 1 in problem conceptualisation and resolution. There are reasons some Oz States have lower crime. lower road tolls and NO chases permitted over minor or traffic offences. Those reasions are called evidence led policies - per evidence chases offer no value to society bar where extremely serious dangerous offenders need capture stat. Judith for example - the one with 19 deaths on her hands (70% innocent bystanders) the last year- because she refuses to show leadership and sort this crap out. Only Kiwis could swallow this.
Paragraphs?
You can't compare overseas examples with multiple helicopters across states all available amongst other huge resources in manpower backed up by draconian laws. And when the only helicopter we have is involved in a chase the rest of the cop cars have to back off and stop chasing.
And how do these disqualified and drunken drivers come to Police attention in the first place? generally because of their manner of driving being so poor either through excessive speed or weaving all over the road.
We had two fatalities out of 19 last year which involved 'innocent' bystanders, slightly less than the 70% you claim. Wonder what else you have simply made up to suit your argument, if it can even be termed that. Try losing the childish personal attacks as well.
Judith for example - the one with 19 deaths on her hands (70% innocent bystanders) the last year-
You write that immediately after calling other people ill-informed?
No it is 70% - source NZ Herald feature which itemised all the deaths a coyuple mths back - only 30% were the fleeing driver so you get a life before a chase takes yours or your fandamilys.
Go read up on all the chases via the IPCA reports rather than relying on Herald articles, which is ironic in itself given you have criticised people in the past for doing exactly that.
Out of all the fatal pursuits only one ended up crashing into an innocent car and that killed the two elderly occupants. That crash would have happened regardless of how stringent the pursuit policy was.
psycho milt- i guess you live in that other nz. the one where deciding which credit card to use when paying for gas for your waranted and regod suv is the dilemma not the nz where you drive the back streets in your unwaranted and unregod black plated jappa because your fines for no wof/no rego are over $15000 and will cost $80-$100 a week to pay off for the next 5-6 years so you dont have to get another $400 of no wof/no rego tickets.
The adoption of zero tolerance enforcement (ie:5km/h ticketing) and pursuit anyone transgressing or even suspected of transgressing (yes, the colour of your car or the colour/age/sex of the driver and other 'determinate' such as the size of your exhaust pipe are subjective probable cause... ) are symptomatic of a Police response to being disliked by a significant proportion of the population. However the cake is cut, the fact remains that Police in order to deliver require the support of the population it Polices. Police chases and the unintended consequences are symptomatic. Not just of the ill-will borne by some towards them, but of a culture of policy making that 'if it doesn't work, just tighten the noose' politics. This is systemic. It is evidenced by populist responses such as mandatory micro-chipping of dogs through to the clamoring for sensible sentencing. They are all characterised by a failure to do the policy impact statement. Just as putting dogs behind high fences and on short leads and banning them from public spaces has lead to the very consequences it set out to solve so too has so much of our political response. The 'anti-cruising' response to the failure of the crushing boy-racer legislation has lead to 'damn it, we'll enforce the law' down multi-lane high traffic density controlled intersections costing a Christchurch couple dearly. Lets be frank. It's not just the policy, its application and the process by where we got here that needs scrutiny. There is a big picture that microanalysis avoids and while this may verge on the philosophical, the gravity of failure to do so will determine the efficacy of the outcomes (we are seeing). it is not limited to police chasing... it is the whole enchilada.
Policing 'four guys and a New Years bong' at huge expense just because it is against the law (in wide and socially acceptable in some circles disrepute) just doesn't cut it. The law's the law is no defense to silliness that brings policing itself into disrepute.
The 'top down' call to speed up and improve Police image of sexual improper behaviors has much deeper implications than just the ignoring of the hundred or so potentially 'criminal' offending that has been committed behind the thin blue line. (lets all forget the plethora of sexually puriant images occupying 30% of the police computer network storage)
Or forget the grave matters occurring under the aegis of the Misuse of Drugs Act that lead to Don Wilkinson, Len Snee and Gage the dog.
It is not good enough to, for political expediency or downright dishonesty (just because 'there are no votes in it' - PM Helen Clark) ignore science, evidence, and policy analytic standards (no policy impact statement has ever been done on our drug laws, nor has one been done for the law Commission review.. and I am not just talking about cost/benefit analysis, some believe what we spend is worth it).
What I am saying is... while the current situation is mediated by the fourth estate and soundbite politics we will NEVER improve the public perception of 'Police' and what they are asked to do. It has got so bad that the person who wants to enter the field of 'enforcement' already brings baggage to the problem. A good colleague of mine, retired head of the London Met. Det. Chief Super Eddie Ellison in personal conversations and to Rotary's up and down the North Island in 2004 predicted this degrading of image in its entirety, best captured by his mantra "Law Enforcement is Not Policing"
Excellent Blair - the policy impact is that of 19 deaths in the last year 70% were not the fleeing driver but were hostage passengers or innocent parties. The policy impact which is the worst in the world along with our general road safety levels being woeful is not of any interest to our leaders. It probably won't ever be, until they or their families are affected. Bring it. The youth will be the ones whose thinking is not rigid and programmed by mainstream media, and with the expanding brown educated demographic they will be the harbingers of change.
Post a Comment
<< Home