Just as predicted. a waste of millions

Page 2 / 3
esky-tastic, Jun 30, 9:57pm
‘Actual useful education’ has been used for decades to highlight seat belt wearing, not drinking and driving, keeping left and other issues.

The pupils have been too thick to take on this education. ,
esky-tastic, Jun 30, 9:58pm
Don’t allow the disappointment to be too shattering.
elect70, Jul 1, 1:34am
But checkp[oints looklike they are doing something to the passing public even if they dont catch any over the limit & thats what road policing is really about smoke & mirrors. Theroad toll continues to climb &theyve had no answer other than more draconian laws on speed & booze .
bashfulbro, Jul 1, 5:07am
Christ, there`s enough incompetent morons in there now without more from TMMB. The bickering on here is worse than the Beehive asylum.
kevymtnz, Jul 1, 5:10am
cose nzers cant drive or are taught very bad habbits
m16d, Jul 1, 5:18am
They're not all shit drivers like you trev.
bumfacingdown, Jul 2, 6:57pm
"That aside, no I do not prefer anarchy, quite the opposite."
A control freak?

" However if we can get them performing at 80%"
What would you use for KPIs?
The money you spoke of does not fall back directly to the Police coffers, roading is not funded from the fines (but you knew that, right?)

" have adequate funding. "
I doubt the Police would agree with that
tgray, Jul 2, 7:41pm
I agree with you Jazz.
A complete waste of money and resources, targeting the wrong people.
scuba, Jul 3, 3:29am
copied from the comments below the article. sorry Jazz I'll go with the man with the life experience unless you can prove otherwise.

As a former Road Policing Sergeant perhaps I can add some actual experience rather than just some baseless opinion. I understand and agree that the goal is not to target people who may want to have a beer/wine after work and I can assure you the lower limit does not do this regardless of what some MP who has never had anything to do with people at different levels of intoxication might say. In my years of experience, having tested and processed hundreds of drink drivers I have yet to meet anyone that has had a beer after work that is anywhere near being on or over 250mcg/L, so to suggest the lower limit catches 'innocent mum and dads having a beer after work' is rubbish. What is not rubbish is the effect of alcohol on your reaction time, it slows it and, at and above 250mc/L it slows it markedly. Throw in the mix NZ drivers seemingly want to drive attached to the car in front of them and at speeds above the speed limit and you have a recipe for disaster. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on the matter but at least let's base our opinions on some fact. I'm sure you are the world's best driver and alcohol doesn't effect your driving and you can react like a puma to every situation and your car has amazing tyres and ABS and blablabla but perhaps the other person who is sitting at 300mcg/L and whose reaction time is effected and who is currently barreling towards you should also be your concern.
msigg, Jul 3, 3:45am
Scuba Yes you are correct, at the time the new limits came into force a journalist drank 7.2 standard drinks and was on the limit for the lowest infringement. So if you stop at 3 or 4 you are well under the limit by half, this is plenty to drink. Also as said above the drinks still have an effect on you, your ability to react is slower and your thinking is slower and more erratic, if you want to drink till you are stupid then call an uber and save your life or that of someone else. Don't be a plonker. More police coming. look out. Drive safely.
thejazzpianoma, Jul 3, 4:03am
Scuba, while I appreciate your responding I am afraid you have done nothing but highlight the arrogant attitude of so many of our Police.

Your argument is faulty on many levels but to pick a couple of obvious ones.

Firstly, the change has cost millions and has done nothing to improve the statistics. This was also predicted by the governments own study before they pushed the law through anyway. It's as simple as that.

Secondly, perception alone is enough to cause issues. One of the things they ignored but were warned about was that we have a real issue with farmer suicides. A study was done showing how important rural Pubs were to the emotional wellbeing of farmers and while I forget the exact numbers the forcast effect of those pubs closing was significant. Perception is all it takes and a quick survey of a dozen people will show you what their perception is with regards to how much they can drink before driving.

You spout about facts and insult MP's etc but have provided no data or logical scenario yourself.
thejazzpianoma, Jul 3, 4:07am
This also highlights exactly what is wrong with our decisions makers thinking. They decide that something "sounds good" and put it in to action either without testing the theory properly or in this inexcusable case against the clear forcast results showing it would be ineffective.

It's not hard to understand. The numbers show it's not working, so get rid of it and put the millions in to something more sensible.

There are so many other places where many more lives could be saved with those resources.
tgray, Jul 3, 8:29pm
He doesn't seem arrogant to me. Whilst I agree with you it's the repeat offenders that should be targeted, I think it is perhaps arrogant of yourself to trash a former road policing Sergeant's opinion. He would be the most credible person to ever post on the subject surely? Let's not pretend we know better. I don't think his post contradicts the general view that millions have been wasted.
esky-tastic, Jul 3, 8:38pm
Excellent post scuba!

Some armchair ‘experts’ who have never processed a single drunk driver will no doubt bleat on and expect us to accept their opinion over somebody who has been/is doing the job.
esky-tastic, Jul 3, 8:40pm
Hmm, so it’s not just me that has noticed this.
thejazzpianoma, Jul 4, 3:30am
He doesn't?
What about the first line of the main text?

"As a former Road Policing Sergeant perhaps I can add some actual experience rather than just some baseless opinion."

This is much like Kaz does, assume that being in some related position of experience they know everything.

It doesn't matter who says what. At the end of the day, drink driving deaths have gone up not down. Just as the Governments own study predicted.

It doesn't matter how many tickets this guy has given out, the numbers are what the numbers are.

I was quite harsh in my reply because it annoys me that people keep abusing peoples authority bias on these boards to push faulty logic.

I don't care if the Queen of England herself backs his opinion, it's clearly wrong. Logic and the numbers are telling us that in no uncertain terms.

The other reason this sort of stuff gets up my nose so much is because real people are dying as a result and millions of dollars are being wasted. All for some stupidity that should have never gone through in the first place.

That said, I really do appreciate his contributions to my thread. Just a shame it wasn't constructive.
thejazzpianoma, Jul 4, 3:33am
Another one who doesn't understand what an opinion is. The numbers are clear it's not my opinion at all.
esky-tastic, Jul 4, 4:49am
Make the level zero - it would stop those whingers who say ‘I only had a couple, I didn’t think I was that far over the limit’.
thejazzpianoma, Jul 4, 8:27am
Well that just cleared up your level of critical thinking and logic for anyone who was still wondering!
bumfacingdown, Jul 4, 6:01pm
"is because real people are dying "
As opposed to the ones killed on the roads who are . . .
nice_lady, Jul 4, 6:09pm
No no that's not how the system works. Laws only get passed/modifed it it's politically expedient for whichever party to do so. Theres rarely anything to do with logic, justice, or the simple principle of common sense involved.
It's got nothing to do with 'solving problems' or similar at all.

It's got everything to do with catching votes so they have a job for a few more years so they can get great money and perks and a lifetime super - yes really SUPER annuation scheme after only 9 years in the Job.
supernova2, Jul 4, 7:46pm
Do you want to bet on the number who are pissed in the mornings?
I personally know of one woman who would never be able to pass a breath test on her way to work every morning!
kazbanz, Jul 4, 9:52pm
I wonder how fast the OP would be bleating if involved in a accident with a drink driver. OR had someone they care about killed by someone" just over the limit'. To bitch about something that does save lives is idiotic in my view. Time NZ attitude to drink driving caught up with the rest of the civilised world. You are dealing with numbers that cannot be quantified. To me and frankly anyone with a hint of common sense they are the most important figures. =The increased number of people that choose NOT to get behind the wheel after a "couple" of drinks and those that choose to abstain from drinking as they are driving.
thejazzpianoma, Jul 5, 2:28am
Can't argue with that!
I should have said should!
thejazzpianoma, Jul 5, 2:35am
You have made two serious mistakes.

Your first argument is trying to change the decision into an emotional one. This is a bad bad idea and as humans are already hardwired to rate emotion over logic it's probably the greatest problem the world faces in terms of humans making poor decisions.

Your second argument is also completely wrong. You have made a nice logical sounding assumption, however when that assumption has been tested, both in a theoretical model and in practice and been proven incorrect, you still want to carry on with it.

As Richard Feynman used to say, it doesn't matter how beautiful your theory or which famous name was attached to it, if it doesn't match the experiment it's wrong.

What amazes me though, is that you guys are smart enough to run successful business's etc but still don't get this basic concept?

I appreciate there are a ton of biases and so on that make these such faulty assumptions very attractive. But even so, how do you even think to argue against both the model and the practice showing no improvement? Additionally not only are you arguing you are doing with complete confidence and calling anyone who doesn't agree stupid.

The only logical argument I can see is if there was some unintended consequence (always a BIG issue with such thing) that was spoiling it from working but could be rectified. I can't really see any evidence for such a factor though and no one has mentioned such a thing in their response.