Police undermined by their own minister

Written By: - Date published: 12:59 pm, June 11th, 2016 - 100 comments
Categories: Judith Collins, law, national, paula bennett, police, useless - Tags: , , , ,

Good piece by Jo Moir on Stuff this morning, about National’s train-wreck week:

Cabinet Ministers tipped as possible PM successors derail over homelessness and police

Two ministers touted as heir apparent to John Key did themselves no favours this week, derailing spectacularly. Not just a wheel coming off the track, but the carriage flipped on its side, smoke and flames kind of derailing.

Yup.

For Bennett, it’s been more than just a bad week. The ongoing headlines around homelessness and a shortage of emergency housing for the most vulnerable Kiwis has plagued the minister for months. Attempts to get back on the front foot haven’t worked and Bennett has been left drowning in a pool of kneejerk policy.

To add insult to injury, Key was comfortable throwing her under the bus when she got things wrong about the Ministry of Social Development’s flying squad accompanying the Salvation Army to offer help to homeless living in cars.

Where’s a competent government when you need one? But enough of Bennett…

As for the other train wreck, perhaps more of a car crash – exhibit two is Collins.

The minister usually known for her hard and crusher-like approach seemed to have a minor meltdown following the horrific road toll at Queen’s Birthday weekend – the worst in 27 years.

Labour’s Stuart Nash was quick to put out a predictable press release on Tuesday saying police underfunding was at fault. He also blamed Collins’ announcement that 100 cops were being taken off the road. But instead of simply pointing out that Nash was ahead of himself given the 100 police hadn’t been cut yet and his argument was redundant, Collins went a bit rogue and blamed men talking on their mobile phones.

Given there’s no proof any of the crashes at the weekend had anything to do with men talking on mobile phones, it’s just odd to even go there.

But that’s not where it stopped. The following day Collins, who has been noticeably withdrawn and quiet in the House over recent weeks, threw a grenade at police efforts to reduce speed on the roads by saying she didn’t agree with their zero-tolerance approach.

I’m not sure if Collins momentarily forgot she’s the Police Minister, but to criticise the police’s flagship policy as far as road policing goes and tackling excessive speed was just bizarre, especially given how unheralded her position was.

Collins undermining the police was not only spectacularly stupid, it was also borderline illegal. Andrew Geddis at Pundit:

Perhaps Judith Collins needs to slow down just a wee bit

Judith Collins let us know what she thinks about how the Police currently enforce speed restrictions on our roads. Not only did she actually get this wrong, but she probably shouldn’t be telling us anyway.

The first wrong thing is that (in her Parliamentary comments, anyway) she flatly misrepresents the Police’s policy on ticketing for speed. …

The second wrong thing is that the claim “too much focus on speed makes people unaware of other dangers” appears to be an “I reckon” rather than objectively proven fact…

Which brings me to the third thing that may be wrong with Minister Collins’ statements. In saying “I do not agree with giving people speeding tickets for driving … even 3 kilometres over the speed limit”, she is coming dangerously close to telling the Police how to enforce the laws of New Zealand. Which is something that, as a Minister of Police, she is both statutorily and constitutionally forbidden from doing.

…there are very, very good constitutional reasons for why the (politically elected) Minister ought not to be able to tell the Police how to go about investigating offences and when and how to respond to lawbreakers.

As Minister of Police Judith (up-to-my-neck-in-dirty-politics) Collins is a disgrace.


100 comments on “Police undermined by their own minister”

  1. Keith 1

    Grossly underfunded Police run by an ethical and moral embarrasment of a minister. And her interference in the way police do their job is a hallmark of this dirty government. The only difference is it’s got more overt.

  2. red-blooded 2

    One example of a Minister trying to do too little, one trying to overstretch the boundaries and do too much by telling the police how to (not) enforce the law. Ironic.

  3. John shears 3

    Maybe John told Benno to “Shut it Sweety” and in the meantime
    Crusher C manages to completely ignore the rise in population and the number of extra cars and trucks on the road, as did the interviewer BTW. Instead she picked on male drivers and cellphone usage. Classic diversion tactic.
    In the meantime the Police are $300 mill. short on dosh and Gerry gets heaps for Defence. Go figure.

    • Sabine 3.1

      not just only are there more people on the road, are the cars more powerful, but you still have new drivers that effectively have not been tought how to drive in that traffic, we now also have a large influx in people from overseas that literally can change their driver license into a NZ licence without having to do a test or anything.

      I know that, cause that is what i did. I asked the Lady at the AA several times if I had not at least had to do an aptitude test or something, nope, nothing, zilch, nada.

      I did my motorbike licence here in NZ, and literally after passing the basic handling skill test and the multiple answer road code i was allowed on the road. I am still shaking my head at that.

      In Germany we have roads with no speed limit and we don’t forcibly die at greater numbers, we are also a transit country with many foreign drivers on the road on any given day, but at least people have to take driving lessons and only get a permit to drive when successfully passing a test. But that of course can’t be done here, cause……….insert what ever reason you find appropriate.

      • When my international licence was a few months off expiring in Germany back in the early 90s, I booked a driving instructor to check me out to see that I’d be able to pass the German test OK. He said seeing as I’d been driving for 15 years already, that shouldn’t be a big deal. Then we went for a drive and he bellowed the question what exactly do you have to be able to do to get a licence in NZ, because I sure as fuck wasn’t going to get one in Germany. I told him that well, the cop came to visit Harihari (pop. 800) once a month to do licence tests, and I’d driven him out of town, done a 3-point turn and brought him back into town again, and he’d given me my drivers’ licence. “OK, that explains it,” he said. “First we’ll start unlearning all your bad habits, then we’ll get you capable of sitting a German driving test.” I’m a pretty good driver now, but most NZers haven’t sat a German driving test…

      • Mosa 3.1.2

        Kiwis are BAD drivers and the stats back that up and I see the mayhem every day.
        There is no real enforcement apart from the odd blitz here and there.
        There should be instant fines for failure to give way,not indicating and following too closely to name a few.
        The whole speed infringement process is flawed and gets no support from the public because of the revenue gathering reputation it has and scince the M O T Police merger 24 years ago road safety is just another area the Police have too look after and can’t always give it the seriousness it deserves.
        Kiwis don’t drive safely because they DONT think SAFETY!!

    • srylands 3.2

      You are being pathetic. Could you please provide a link to your analysis that the Police are $300 million short? While you are at it reconcile your mad assertion with Grant’s call for the Government to reduce debt faster.

      Hon Collins’ popularity will soar on this comment. The Police’s approach to roading policing has been nuts. As a petrol head Hon Collins will be aware of this. She will also know that the credibility of the Police has been shattered by the “zero tolerance” speeding nonsense.

      As for Defence. @LOL at your comment. How is the $20 billion new? At the end of the program our defence spending will by 1.1% of GDP. It should be at least 2% to be consistent with USA guidelines for Defence partners. Australia has made that 2% mark. New Zealand has failed.

      • Keith 3.2.1

        National cut their budget by 10%, then made them “save”be a further 19% or more and on top of all that, has in essence, frozen their budget ever since. This most recent budget allocation is to cover the lost ground partially and it’s stretched over 4 years making the initial given amount seen better than it is!

        • Tom 3.2.1.1

          Yes you are better than Keith, of course.

        • srylands 3.2.1.2

          Why is delivering public services more efficiently a bad thing?

          I can assure you that the current funding models are permanent.

          • Keith 3.2.1.2.1

            Its far from efficient and far from delivering what the public deserve, and I bet it’s permanent but only whilst National cling to power.

          • McFlock 3.2.1.2.2

            let’s just cut their funding completely and have the most “efficient” police force you can imagine.

          • The New Bapsae 3.2.1.2.3

            Are you being funny? Because the idea that fund cuts = efficiency is a riot

          • Jones 3.2.1.2.4

            On face value it isn’t but public services have to remain effective also.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 3.2.1.2.5

            the current funding models are permanent

            Until Parliament decides otherwise. You are stupid and arrogant to believe that your lies are going to hold New Zealand back forever, S Rylands.

      • Why would we want to be at the US guidelines for defense spending? The US has no credibility on what a balanced amount to spend on defense is, they waste a ridiculous portion of their budget on (often un-needed) defense programs.

        Also, keep in mind that listing defence-vs-GDP is a bit misleading. Unless you’re making international comparisons it’s generally clearer to refer to things as a percentage of the total budget rather than benchmarking it against GDP, (as the vs-GDP metric makes defence spending sound smaller than it actually is) as we don’t have to normalise for differently-sized tax takes.

  4. Repateet 4

    “… it’s just odd to even go there”? Not odd at all, just the scurrilous action of a scumbag.

  5. save nz 5

    I think Joyce is the most likely Nat Leader in waiting. Supposedly the ‘brains’ of the party.

    I can’t see Collins being put forward when Key goes, before Joyce.

    • Henry Filth 5.1

      Leadership is likely to be decided on who can pull in the bucks.

      Follow the money

    • Lanthanide 5.2

      Joyce might be the brains, but he’s not the happy leader that you put up front on all your billboards.

      • Hanswurst 5.2.1

        Neither are Collins or Bennett. I think that description would best fit Nikki Kaye, Jami-Lee Ross, Simon Bridges or Maggie Barry. The first three have a very strong stupid-dick factor to surmount, but that has never seemed to hurt Shit-Arsed, Smellyfuck, Wanking Donkey Riding a Spasming Kangaroo, so it would mainly be a question of whether the public had tired of the well-heeled-idiot look. Maggie Barry has possibly got too much of the image of a kind parent to be taken seriously as a National Wanker. None of them seems to be on top of their game enough to face up to consistent proper interviewing (although again, that has not harmed Shit-Arsed, Smellyfuck, Wanking Donkey Riding a Spasming Kangaroo too much over the last eight years, so it would be a matter of whether the public was sick of it). Nor is Bennett. Joyce, going by his interviews, isn’t really terribly solid in that regard, either, if the disasters he has delivered in hes relaticely infrequent interviews are anything to go by.

        That leaves Collins, who is formidable. On the basis of her capability and lucidity, the Left should be very afraid of her. The Right are afraid of Cunliffe for the same reason. On the other hand, Collins provides even more fodder than Cunliffe for the media to assassinate her, if anything. She would potentially be gone by lunchtime as leader. The question, however, is whether the media would do that, about which I have my doubts. National may, however, refrain from selecting her in the first place based on the baggage she brings and the couple of gaffes that she has already made when under consistent pressure.

        • Wensleydale 5.2.1.1

          Anyone whose heard Maggie “Garden Show” Barry’s torrents of condescending snark during question time is left with little doubt she’s more than able to live up to her role as a “National Wanker”. She comes off as both imperious and mean-spirited, which is quite sad given she seemed such a kindly soul during her Garden Show years. I believe both Laila Harre and Martyn Bradbury have first hand experience of her penchant for spite and vitriol.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 5.3

      Everything he touches merely turns to shit, as opposed to something far worse. This makes him the brains of the National Party.

  6. save nz 6

    As for the police, with TPPA on the cards – they can look forward to a mass influx of cheaper police replacing them from our trading partners.

  7. Observer Toke 7

    Two Women you Know so well.
    .Paula and Judith
    .
    . Bennett has the big Ministry of Housing. Well it’s not really that big, because she has apparently sold lots of houses off to assorted groups and is negotiating sales of state housing to Australia. At the same time she has built very few houses if any.

    All this at a time when population has been increasing leaps and bounds.

    If anything, her problem seems to be that she does not have enough to do. Having little to do she makes stuff up. She made up Flying Squads the other day.

    .The other woman that is not coping is Little Alice in Wonderland, aKa Judith Collins. She holds the Ministry of Police.

    Whether through her or by sheer negligence the Police have exempted themselves from investigating Burglaries, and the associated things such as Home Invasions. Break and Enters and Theft and Damage are of very major concern to New Zealanders. There is a hell of a lot of such crime happening.

    It is of concern to the Population, but not it appears of concern to Alice in Wonderland.

    By not counting the crimes, she is able to boast that crime has gone down. Bullshit. It seems that she incapable of directing the police to look after New Zealands homes and citizens.

    Astonishingly, She also wants to stop the Police from enforcing the speed limits. A touch of insanity, given our Road Carnage.

    Would you employ these two women to critically important highly paid positions?

    I want to know how they actually get dressed in the morning. !

    • srylands 7.1

      The way the police enforce speed limits is bullshit. How about enforcing idiots driving at 95 kmh in the passing lanes of motorways? These scumbags are a scourge.

      • r0b 7.1.1

        Why are you RWNJs so angry all the time? It must be exhausting.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1.1.1

          It’s their grossly distended amygdalae.

          • McFlock 7.1.1.1.1

            and the fact that laws might get enforced against them as well as the people they think deserve it. It’s a major blow to the ego.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1.1.1.1.1

              Alternatively, when they heard that “the more bread you have, the less shit you have to eat”, they thought it was an ethical instruction manual.

        • Psycho Milt 7.1.1.2

          He has a point – those guys are really annoying.

        • Stuart Munro 7.1.1.3

          They build their life around a set of beliefs that just doesn’t work – so frustrating.

      • The New Student 7.1.2

        Can I just point out that 100 km/hr is a limit, as in, no higher than. So that means 100 km/hr is the absolute fastest you are permitted to go. Not too difficult to understand.

      • What srylands needs is to lighten up a little… get a bit down to earth , so to speak…

        Here’s one he can think about when he reads about Donald Trump calling a senator of Cherokee heritage ‘ Pocahontas’….

      • Armchair Critic 7.1.4

        Driving at 95km/h in the right hand lane might, just might be immoral, but it’s not illegal. And that whole “not illegal” is the low standard our PM has set for years now.

      • KJT 7.1.5

        If they are going 95 to 100k’s they are perfectly entitled to stay in the right hand lane, to avoid being stuck behind the truck doing the 90k in the left lane, that it is supposed to do..

        There is no law that says they have to pull over so the person doing 110 K can pass them. Sorry.

        • Psycho Milt 7.1.5.1

          “Keep left unless passing.” Not being a shit driver really isn’t that difficult.

          • KJT 7.1.5.1.1

            Except while passing, at the legal speed limit, you have Srylands and Psycho behind you tooting, because they cannot pass you. FIFY.

            • Ross 7.1.5.1.1.1

              Well, you shouldn’t be in the passing lane doing 95 while others are up your arse. It’s not too onerous to get into the left lane.

  8. jcuknz 8

    What background has Andrew Geddis got to write such rubbish, any more than my views.
    So eleven folk managed to kill themselves last holiday weekend .. so what?
    More important would be the figures of the injured which are now clogging up the Health System when there are sick people needing help.
    The whole business of speeding tickets may be the traffic dept flagship policy which just goes to show just how wrong they are. Science my backside … codswallop.
    How many folk speed up sensibly at passing lanes to overtake quickly and safely but get a speeding ticket. Or on the ordinary road an even more sensible place to break the limits for a short time.

    No Sorry … but this is just another reason to vote for Crusher Collins if she was not just making headlines and would implement such a policy. Trouble is how many cars got crushed? The ‘too late or never with too little’ government URRGH!

    disclaimer … I have had one speeding ticket from a very long time ago which wasn’t really speeding in 68 years of driving on NZ roads.

    • r0b 8.1

      What background has Andrew Geddis got to write such rubbish, any more than my views.

      Well he’s a Professor of Law at the University of Otago, and a well known constitutional expert. He’s a frequent and astute commentator on the law and politics. And he knows more about science than your backside does. So there’s that.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.1

        Personally I think his backside knows more about science than jcuknz.

        • r0b 8.1.1.1

          Doesn’t bear thinking about!

          • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.1.1.1

            “Tonight, in Celebrity Law Smackdown, we bring you, from the University of Otago, fighting out of the red corner, Professor Geddis’ backside, and flailing out of the blue corner, some guy from the internet…”

      • jcuknz 8.1.2

        Nice to know he is highly qualified in law but what does he know about driving was my question. Sounds like another ivory tower expert from Otago University.

        • You reckon Andrew doesn’t drive? 😉

          Seriously though, have you read the whole piece? It’s well-cited and researched, he’s not just spouting opinion, he’s also been careful with the facts. (As Andrew usually is)

    • “What background has Andrew Geddis got to write such rubbish, any more than my views.”

      None! Except for being a Professor of Law, but.

      [ed: Oh! Thanks r0b, That was more than I’d have claimed for myself, but I’ll take it!]

      • r0b 8.2.1

        You’re always too modest! Liked the physics bit…

      • One Anonymous Bloke 8.2.2

        Everyone knows professors of law are just like lawyers, and I can find you another who’ll give you a counterview 😛

        PS: why have a dog and bark yourself?

        • Andrew Geddis 8.2.2.1

          “Everyone knows professors of law are just like lawyers, and I can find you another who’ll give you a counterview ”

          We professors of law run a very tightly closed shop, where public disagreement with a colleague results in terrible, terrible consequences being visited on the miscreant.

          How else do you think we’ve managed to build ourselves such a vast and powerful web of influence (he says, wistfully with a sigh).

          • One Anonymous Bloke 8.2.2.1.1

            Serious question Perfesser: in the event that the Minister for Oravida stepped fully over the line into illegal interference in Police matters, what sanctions could be applied, and upon whom would the responsibility fall for applying them?

            • Andrew Geddis 8.2.2.1.1.1

              If she were to try and explicitly tell the Commissioner (or any other police employee) how to approach a particular case (or, even, how to investigate and/or enforce certain offences), the Commissioner (or other police employee) ought to tell her “no – I have no reason to listen to you … indeed, I would be acting unlawfully if I did.”

              The consequence for such behaviour would then be primarily political, in terms of her resignation would be all but mandatory (as with Maurice Williamson).

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                Thank you. Is there an overarching constitutional reason why criminal sanctions shouldn’t apply to this theoretical Minister? Ditto for other conflicts of interest that may arise from time to time as a result of National Party business.

                It seems to me that there are few sanctions, if any.

                • McFlock

                  Seems to me that the problem is that when the rules were written there was a thing called “integrity” and “shame”. If one failed, the other resulted in resignations when discovered.

                  Even under Clark folks did their spell on the back benches or whatever pretty quickly. These days Key just shrugs and says he’s not bovvered.

      • jcuknz 8.2.3

        While some will take this thread as being the proprietry of JC’s comments as minister , my comments relate to the sanity of the driving laws and enforcement here in NZ.
        So It is nice to see AG admitting the fact that my views hold as much water on the latter subject as his.

    • The New Student 8.3

      “Speed up sensibly” LOL
      I see logic is not your strong point? Hang about while I sensibly steal…ah relieve you of your motor vehicle

  9. Labour’s Stuart Nash was quick to put out a predictable press release on Tuesday saying police underfunding was at fault.

    A press release as ridiculous as the Police one crediting that time we had no road deaths over Queen’s Birthday weekend to their zero-tolerance for speeding. These press releases do give me cause to reflect, but the reflection is on whether the people involved are ignorant or duplicitous – presumably not the kind of reflection they were hoping for.

    • Lanthanide 9.1

      Surely if the police think they can make such a difference as to get a 0 road toll on one holiday weekend, if another one is particularly bad they must also acknowledge that they failed to make the difference, and take the blame.

  10. Surely if the police think they can make such a difference as to get a 0 road toll on one holiday weekend, if another one is particularly bad they must also acknowledge that they failed to make the difference, and take the blame.

    That was what I thought when they took the credit for the zero toll, but funnily enough they never claim their enforcement methods account for the bad years…

  11. Richardrawshark 11

    It’s the HSV Holden and Ford owners I hate, I live in the Waikato and they seem to think they are Murphy or something. Want to stop crashes, stop making cars that are made to go fast. What’s the point when the speed limits 100.

    It’s cash revenue not any attempt to stem speeding. Because they CAN stop it, but then would make no money.

    You can speed limit all vehicles and make it illegal to remove the limiter.

    • srylands 11.1

      “You can speed limit all vehicles and make it illegal to remove the limiter.”
      _____________

      There is no country in the world that does that.

      If you are overtaking a slow moving vehicle with a limited passing lane (the norm in NZ) you are going to need to do at least 130 for a short stretch. How do you manage that if your car has been fucked with to limit it to 100?

      Road safety could be improved by building much better roads. The Government has made a start but there is much to do. Because of past under investment it is 30 year job at least.

      Road safety could also be improved by cracking down on willfully dangerous practices like travelling at 90 kmh in the right hand lane of motorways – a practice that is prohibited by the road code but which I encounter every day.

      • McFlock 11.1.1

        130???

        I’m glad I don’t encounter you on the road every day.

        I’m sad the cops don’t.

        • Psycho Milt 11.1.1.1

          On German autobahns, which are mostly just dual carriageways, when you’re doing 160kph in the outside lane you need to keep a good eye on your mirror for people coming up behind you at 200kph. Carnage does not ensue.

          The NZ way is to enter the passing lane, accelerate very slowly so no-one thinks you might be the sort of dangerous character who drives fast, use the entire passing lane to get yourself past at 100kph and ignore what’s happening in your rear-view mirror, eg the other six vehicles that wanted to use the passing lane. Safety is not thereby improved.

          • McFlock 11.1.1.1.1

            They’re also designed for high speeds.

            NZ roads are barely suited to 100kph

          • Ross 11.1.1.1.2

            Despite high German speeds on some of their roads, their road toll is lower than ours. Speed and fatalities don’t necessarily go together but I guess it makes for a nice sound bite.

            • Matthew Whitehead 11.1.1.1.2.1

              Have you ever travelled in a car going at high speed on an Autobahn? I have, and I have never felt more terrified on the road than at that point, and I knew I was in the hands of a responsible driver, on a well-designed road, with minimal traffic.

              Germany has a relatively responsible driving culture, and a very responsible drinking culture. We are not at the point where we could risk experimenting with Autobahn-style open speed limits, even if we had roads that were up to the idea. I also think it’s a good thing to have a speed limit because it helps guide people into watching their speed on the motorway and into more responsible driving.

      • jcuknz 11.1.2

        Having driven on American two lane motorways and been frustrated/amused by trucks playing overtaking with limiter to make their max speed ten mph slower than my Honda Accord….. five miles down the road the lane is cleared URRRGH 🙂

      • KJT 11.1.3

        If you need to speed at 130k to pass within the passing distance, you do not have room to pass!

        Obviously right wing arrogance, antisocial attitudes and entitlement is not only confined to politics.

        • Psycho Milt 11.1.3.1

          If you’re driving a car that can have you on the wrong side of the road for only five seconds instead of ten when overtaking, and you decide that actually you’ll spend ten seconds on the wrong side of the road because Rules, you’re not actually helping road safety, you’re hindering it. Same goes for taking an entire passing lane to get your own car past a slow-moving vehicle and leaving no room for others – road safety is hindered, not helped.

          • Matthew Whitehead 11.1.3.1.1

            Except KJT wasn’t talking about slowing down mid-pass, they were saying you need enough visible space free in the lane to pass at 100kph before you start passing, otherwise you are not driving safely, and could reasonably be ticketed for reckless driving even if you never broke the speed limit.

            Yes, sometimes due to idiots speeding up while you’re trying to pass or some other aggressive-driving situation, the safest thing to do from a defensive standpoint is to break the limit. But that wasn’t what anyone was talking about.

    • Jones 11.2

      I once saw a documentary on car accidents and they had an interview with a designer from BMW or Mercedes, I think, who was saying one of the main problems is car safety itself, now so good that drivers feel more confident in taking risks. He said solving the problem was simple… place a stake in the centre of the steering wheel pointed straight at the driver’s heart.

  12. Sabine 12

    it actually matters really little what anyone thinks in regards to the speed limit.

    Legally and contractual the Police should have a 0 tolerance as the Speedlimit is 100 km/h, or 50 km/h, or 80km/h or what ever is signed.
    This speedlimit then is not a Target but a Limit. 1 km over is breaking the speed limit.

    Do i believe the tolerance should be a bit more flexible? Like maybe more something like 5 km – 10 km, yes, but a Copper would be fully within the law if he/she were not.

    And while a 100 km is not forcibly a speed that kills, bad to no driving skills, a powerful car and maybe a distraction – coffee, radio, phone – can be a deadly combination.

    And well, i hope that the Police educates the Minister of the Police about what her and their respective responsibilities are.

    • McFlock 12.1

      Agreed.

      Saw a nice billboard a while back: “it’s a limit, not a target”.

      • srylands 12.1.1

        Yeah I saw that Billboard too. It was around the time that thousands of drivers got speed camera tickets – sometimes two or three in a week – for doing 54 in a 50 zone. These same people that witness fucked driver behaviour every day that the police ignore.

        That is what Collins is on about.

        • McFlock 12.1.1.1

          Hey, there’s an intersection near my work where I’d love for them to put automatic cameras to catch illegal right turns. That would be fucking awesome.

          The problem is not that the law is being enforced. The problem is that some other laws are not being enforced.

    • srylands 12.2

      “This speedlimit then is not a Target but a Limit. 1 km over is breaking the speed limit.”

      That is just sanctimonious crap. You are clearly not interested in improving road safety. If you were a driver you would not state such crap.

      • Sabine 12.2.1

        actually no. It is the law.

        Full stop. Don’t argue this with me, argue it with the lawmakers.

      • McFlock 12.2.2

        I’m a driver. I manage to stay within the speed limit. Maybe you’re just an idiot who is incapable of that.

        • jcuknz 12.2.2.1

          I am not really suprised than drivers get tickets sealed up in their little boxes on wheels with radio, gps and family distracting them. I used GPS for two weeks in a UK visit which was essential not to get lost but never a radio.

          I am driving a killing machine which needs my full attention. What speed I doing is determined by road and weather ….. often well below any limits and giving way as quickly as possible to traffic catching me up* …. that is on sparsely used SI roads, it could be different up north.
          *I have better things to donate to than MOT/consolidated fund.

        • Trey 12.2.2.2

          Really? You have never crept up to 54 in a 50 zone or 104 in a 100 zone ever? Never pushed it out to 108 over taking a caravan in a passing lane? Wow, you must be New Zealands safest driver.

          • jcuknz 12.2.2.2.1

            Of course I have Trey 🙂 But in dangerous situations [ when cops around] I watch things. Plus it helps not to have a smooth modern vehicle, current one is 22 years old/young.

          • McFlock 12.2.2.2.2

            Not safest.

            Just reasonably patient.

            And if I had, I wouldn’t bitch about any ticket that resulted. Not that I’ve ever had a ticket, but if I had, that’s on me and my poor driving. Like parking tickets – I’ve never had one of those, either.

        • Ross 12.2.2.3

          How do you know you stay within the limit and how many times do you look at the speedo?

          • McFlock 12.2.2.3.1

            Well, no tickets for a start, and periodically. It’s not a case of staring at the bloody thing, it looks odd when you’re doing your close scan and the needle is a bit farther right in your peripheral than usual.

            The one accident I had was the result of dodgy brakes that I didn’t quite realise were dodgy. So now I pay closer attention to them. And yes, I was under the speed limit at the time.

        • You do realise that speedos on new cars average about 5kph off at 100kph, right?

          So you could totally be staying under 100kph on your speedo but be clocked at 105 by a camera if nobody’s ever checked that your speedometer is reading accurately.

          Now, I’m not saying that police need to give a huge amount more leniency, but while Collins probably shouldn’t have made the comment, she is correct that ticketing someone for going 4kph over is within the margin of error and thus seems a trivial reason to ticket someone if they weren’t driving dangerously for some other reason.

          • McFlock 12.2.2.4.1

            Well, the speedo is your responsibility to check, if you can be bothered. I’ve not.

            But more than one individual has gotten off because the speed measuring device used by the cops hadn’t been properly calibrated or deployed.

          • jcuknz 12.2.2.4.2

            I check my speedo against the little box type speed thingies attached to poles beside the road and know my speedo is about 2 km under at 50 and similar at 80km. [Dunedin and Cromwell]
            In anycase the experienced driver feels from the noise of his vehicle that he is speeding or not without looking at the speedo .. though I admit to wearing graduated sunglasses to reduce the difference between the road and the speedo … old age reduces the speed the eyes can adjust to different light levels.

      • Trey 12.2.3

        Has anyone been given a ticket for being 1km over the speed limit? If they were I think they would be able to challenge that in court as most speedometers are only accurate to 3kms and the police speed cameras also have a similar margin of error.
        The police zero tolerance normally allows for this margin so if you are traveling at 103km per hour you get the benefit of doubt but 105km per hour you get stopped and depending on a range of factors (attitude being a big one) get warned or ticketed.

        • jcuknz 12.2.3.1

          Yes my son did when visiting from o’seas and I paid the fine to keep his record clean for future visits.

  13. save nz 13

    Have to say that tired of traffic just being used as revenue gathering by police and local government.

    It seems like it is nothing to do with safety as they target areas that are the easiest to make money from rather than back roads and high accident roads and beaches where the hoons and drugged out and drunk people go.

    Now In Auckland the new thing to make money for Auckland Transport is that they target families dropping off their kids at school for ‘traffic infringement’. It’s a wonderful way to make easy money for the council from parents, when the schools and Transport have designed schools and roads without thinking about the issue of dropping off kids. Often the parking officer enforcing it, is actually parking illegally while they film others or taking up a parking spot away from a parent and child.

    Just another way to rip off families in Auckland and make a quick buck for Auckland Transport.

    Police and council officers don’t seem to want to actually make roads and communities safer by solving dangerous or congested situations, they just want to profit from it.

    • Brigid 13.1

      If families got their little darlings to walk to school the problem wouldn’t exist. Why is it that kids legs don’t work these days? Something in the water?

      • save nz 13.1.1

        Obviously most kids do walk to school, but when it is howling a gale or you live far away from the school for small kids to walk both ways and you have other kids and babies as well, or disabled kids, maybe it is not as easy as some (probably childless or with a simple life) seem to think. Because of traffic now, the school’s themselves are stopping kids walking home from school. There would be no way a small child could walk home around where I live unaccompanied with the amount of traffic and the lack of crossings. Rather than improve safety the bureaucrats role seems to be to try to take advantage of the situation to gain financially.

        The police and council go after the easy targets to get extra revenue is my point. It is nothing about safety.

        This is similar to making people pay to park at a hospital. The hospital is free but there are always some corporation being sold the rights to make money from someones misfortunes in this country.

  14. tc 14

    I’ve never seen police take action on car phone use also, watched a couple observe several incidents of it whilst they were parked with a radar and they just smiled and pointed to each other.

    Then Sabines depiction of polices attitude to a women with a genuine threat the other week not wanting to attend her call for assistance.

    Plenty of resources for hager raids, slater diversion, prominent nzers and teapot tapes raids though in the brighter future. It’s all about choices and who gets to make them.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts