Just don’t call it a quota
One of the reasons trust in the Police keeps dropping, is when the hierarchy act like politicians.
The Herald reveals a memo from Waitemata road policing manager Superintendent John Kelly:
In the August 12 email, Waitemata road policing manager Superintendent John Kelly sets out ticket targets for his district’s highway patrol officers in five “fatal” offence categories.
The categories are speeding, alcohol, restraints (e.g. seatbelts and child carseats), dangerous/careless driving and high-risk driving.
Each fulltime-equivalent officer is expected to issue 1420 tickets a year, including 560 for speeding, the email says.
With 225 traffic officers on New Zealand roads, that means 875 tickets should be dished out to motorists throughout the country every day.
And the email points out in bold type that the figures are “the minimum expectation”.
It’s damn obvious there is a quota. What else do you call a minimum expectation?
Mr Kelly told the Weekend Herald the figures in the email came from the national quarterly performance report, and were averages only.
“There’s no quota,” he said yesterday. “There’s nothing that says, ‘You will by God go out there and write out 25 tickets an hour for speeding’ or anything like that.
No, the quota is not an hourly quota, but it is still a quota. We get the truth elsewhere:
However, National Party police spokesman Chester Borrows said Mr Kelly’s email confirmed the existence of quotas “yet again”.
“What running a quota does is concentrate on getting tickets and it doesn’t concentrate on harm reduction,” he said. “Police will give tickets to people where it’s easy to catch them rather than where the real fear of death or injury is.”
Police Association president Greg O’Connor also said the reality was that quotas existed.
“Every police officer knows that police have quotas and wryly smile whenever they see senior police stand up and say they don’t.
“They are dressed up many other ways but the reality is that there is an expectation of members that are out there, that they will write so many tickets to certain categories.”
Mr O’Connor said quotas were “essentially wrong” because they impacted on “that most important element of policing, which is discretion”.
And the deceptive language used by the Police hierarchy just undermines confidence in them.
September 13th, 2008 at 9:22 am
This is exactly the type of thing that I would like to National can.
Seeing a cop car hiding in bushes on the motorway with a radar stuck out his window does nothing to make our roads safer.
If they banned radars, maybe the cops would actually go do some work.
And while I’m on it….
Police cars should be banned from being parked on motorways.
Ever noticed how traffic comes to a standstill when a cop car is parked yet nothing is happening.
Revenue gathering waste of bloody time!!
September 13th, 2008 at 9:32 am
I also blogged on this today David.
It pains me to even think this let alone say it but John Banks amalgamation of traffic and Police has been a bloody disaster.
Listening to Clark rant about improvements to the crime figures yesterday was sickening.
Try telling that to anyone who lives under the tyranny of violent crime in the urban slums.
This govt has skirted around the problem for far too long, they have no answers.
Time for a change before the 40% considering a move to OZ becomes 60%.
September 13th, 2008 at 9:40 am
At $100 each that’s a cool $32 mil revenue. What an excellent non target.
September 13th, 2008 at 9:54 am
just like quotas are called minimum expectations, just like 20 hours free is called free, ( and just like people on the sickness benefit are not ” called” unemployed) perhaps we can equally “call” the government a government because its not actually governing.
We could write quite a big list…
Things re filtering down and the truth is outing.
Its all based on trust, Helen says.
September 13th, 2008 at 9:57 am
So the National policy on this is coming, I hope. National merged the traffic cops with the police in the early 90s…maybe they could do the reverse this time round…hmm? Would be nice.
September 13th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Clearly a quota. I mean i know most of the people the cops deal with are as thick as two bricks, but surely they don’t think we’re all that stupid?
I was lectured in a HR paper by one of the people that helped develop the police performance management system, and she said that they demanded a measurable standard for individual officers, and tickets per hour was the only one they could give the police as being easy to measure. So its BS each time the police pull out this line.
September 13th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Actually I beleive them.
There is no “quota”. A quota is something that you aim for and when you get there you stop. these are clearly “minimums”. This is their STARTING point.
Try asking the deceptive assholes if a “minimum” exists.
So glad that Labour are campaigning on trust. Its like turkeys campaigning for cranberry sauce.
September 13th, 2008 at 10:17 am
No Murray, if you work in the government sector they are called targets. Once you hit the target you stop and take sick leave. If you know you cant hit the target you take sick leave whenever you want. Because – for example if you work at WINZ, ACC, Housing etc , and take sick leave, you are not often sick, you have just called in sick.
Because it’s what you call it that counts. It’s all about trust.
September 13th, 2008 at 10:22 am
How about setting a quota of crooked politicians to catch each 3 years? If the police manage to jail 10 percent of MPs in a parliamentary term… which wouldn’t be that hard given the number of Labour and NZ First MPs who can’t open their mouths without telling a lie… then they’d be paid a bonus and be let off doing traffic patrol.
September 13th, 2008 at 10:23 am
I recently got a ticket in circumstances that could be described as outright “entrapment”; where a 50km/h sign has been placed on a main road into Blenheim well before the built-up area actually begins; possibly because there is new urban construction happening on side roads off the main road and it is simpler to just put the 50km/h sign on the main road rather than on each and every side road as you turn into it. I actually turned onto the “main” road from one of those side roads shortly after where the 50km/h sign has been placed, and I am a stranger to Blenheim, and as far as it looked to me, wa-hey, here I am back on “open road” again, off I go…….
Of COURSE, that happens to be the very stretch of road that the local plods “troll” to fill their bloody quotas, isn’t it, surprise, surprise…..
September 13th, 2008 at 10:32 am
So senior police officer lie to us. Yes, it’s all about trust
September 13th, 2008 at 10:35 am
I’m just glad my taxpayer dollars are being spent achieving a traffic safety quota.
Doesn’t a quota imply an ever decreasing scale of offence? Much like describing a poverty level as <40% of median wage, even if that level still means every household has Sky TV. If driving standards improve the cops then have to start ticketing people only slightly exceeding the boundaries.
I know what I’d like to see happen, and that’s less frivolous targetting of easy offences, and more effort put into breaking up and convicting actual criminals.
September 13th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Entrapment is actually legal in New Zealand Phil. I’m sure the usual suspects thank for your contribution to their chosen lifestyle of sitting on their asses and telling you that they are better than you.
September 13th, 2008 at 10:43 am
spider_pig – breaking up and convicting actual criminals is a cost centre business, while minor traffic offence are a profit centre business. you don’t think the government actually cares about people do you?
September 13th, 2008 at 10:54 am
And, Murray, if the Cops were to use “entrapment” tactics on a P production ring, what would the defence lawyers do with that?
September 13th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Well the last time that happened they judge convicted the guy who bought a joint of an undercover cop just to get rid of the guy who was pestering him to buy.
The defence lawyer only got to argue mitigation.
September 13th, 2008 at 11:27 am
In this case I am going to go against the tide. 1420 tickets in a year doesn’t sound like much to me. Thats only 28 per week per man. Management would know from statistics how many tickets are likely to be issued. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to expect traffic cops to issue a certain number if only to make sure they are not sitting on the side of the road reading a book.
September 13th, 2008 at 11:34 am
This is the important bit, Chester Borrows: “What running a quota does is concentrate on getting tickets and it doesn’t concentrate on harm reduction,” he said. “Police will give tickets to people where it’s easy to catch them rather than where the real fear of death or injury is.”
The most patrolled bits of road in the country are usually the safest sections of road, but with just enough in the way of gentle bends and dips to hide police cars.
September 13th, 2008 at 11:41 am
The police have become by far the biggest and most active political organisation in the country as they are given more and more money and discretionary powers.
An enormous amount of their effort goes into moulding public opinion for their own purposes rather than serving it.
And despite the huge media coverage they command, they are the perennial worst offenders in failing to comply with the Official Information Act as shown in the Ombudsman annual reports.
Despite all this (or perhaps because of it) it is near impossible to get a jury to convict a policeman because there is a sizeable minority of the population who refuse to believe they can ever do wrong. Combined with a “protect one’s mates” mentality and a completely useless Police Complaints Authority until the recent reforms this does seem to have a led to a situation where some police think they are above the law and the police hierarchy think they can swear black is white so long as they keep onside with the Beehive.
Corruption starts with attitudes at the top.
September 13th, 2008 at 11:53 am
If quotas remain static, then advertising to reduce drink driving, booze buses, ad’s to stop speeding etc are not working.
We are assured they are working and good use of money.
If quotas increase every year, then advertising and other methods are not working.
We are assured they are working and good use of money.
Someone is lying. It’s about trust.
The conclusion is clear: These quotas encourage corruption, like everything else this government has a hand in.
It’s about trust. Can the police afford to lose it, without the backstop of a Labour coalition government? Greg O’connor has already said there is rift between front line and upper management. It’s about trust.
September 13th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Unfortunately the rotten top of the keystones cops piggy barrel hierarchy is saturated with Aunty Helen lap poodles. These weak gutted creeps taint the image of the all the boys in blue and jeopardize the safety of all front line officers. Bureaucratic police are wasted space Labour nutbars. Meanwhile in the real world the violent criminal laughs his cock off, they thrive and flourish in a crazy society. Ask any good ex cop why he left the force. They’ll tell you. Fact. What a cess pit country with bent police running the show!
September 13th, 2008 at 11:58 am
getstaffed: Not for one second!
goodgod: A rift between front line health staff and upper management also exists in the Health system (and most likely the education system also). That will be the legacy (one of) of this Government: Increased expenditure, but on the wrong people leading to a bulging bureaucracy who need to come up with schemes to justify their existence.
September 13th, 2008 at 11:58 am
“the deceptive language used by the Police hierarchy ” is further proof of how Labour have turned most of our police force into another inefficient bureaucracy. They should be issuing invoices instead of tickets, oh that’s right, they are.
This stupid attempt to run everything with “systems” is a crock, apart from the fact that they are not very good at designing “systems”. Isn’t everything that goes wrong today down to systemic failure? Go figure. I am convinced that recent terrible and deadly disasters with police operations will be able to be traced back to the officers involved having to operate within bureaucrat designed systems and procedures rather than using common sense and initiative.
In Helen we trust…….
September 13th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
And Greg O’Connor gets it wrong again… I’d actually be happy if Police had a damn sight less “discretion” and were focused on what’s really the most element of policing — the credibility and authority that comes from the impartial (and disinterested) eforcement of the law. Pressuring officers to meet quotas undermines that. You don’t have to be a paranoid cop-hater to see someone getting into quite a bit of shit when they’ve padded their stats by issuing rather dodgy tickets that end up being thrown out.
And who wants to bet that it’s going to be frontline cops who get shat on in such circumstances, not the desk cowboys at HQ or the Commissioner’s Office
September 13th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
A few years ago I was driving a 20-year-old car with a tired engine and I entered the motorway at a relatively sedate pace (compared to other cars, but not ridiculously slow), only to find myself pulled over by a cop just after I got onto the motorway. I certainly hadn’t done anything wrong, and when I asked why I was pulled over the cop didn’t give an answer. I believe that he saw an old car as being a good opportunity to fulfill his quota.
Pulling over people without due cause (i.e. they are not displaying an obvious reason for “needing” police attention) just puts the public offside and I believe that it is a breach of civil liberties.
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/police-checkpoints-breach-the-civil-liberties-of-the-many-to-catch-the-few/
September 13th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
“Police will give tickets to people where it’s easy to catch them rather than where the real fear of death or injury is.”
I am not sure what the fuss is about, if you don’t break the law, you don’t get a ticket, therefore there is no revenue to be gathered, rather simple logic I would have thought. A quota seems a simple way ensure that the police penalise the law breakers. Or is this a case of its OK to break the law because it doesn’t suit.
September 13th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Dewy, yeah, but you didn’t really address that quote. The quote implies that cops will give tickets to people where it is easy to catch them, e.g. a spot where the speed limit changes from 100 to 50km, at the bottom of a hill, where people have gathered up a lot of momentum. Could be nice and straight road though, not particulary dangerous, but a lot of people break the limit there, so the cops go there, instead of a dangerous spot which has fewer people going through it, so less chance of filling quotas.
September 13th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
I wonder what quota the Labour Party will be allowed for breaches of the Electoral Finance Act?
September 13th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Dewy, the laws we have, believe it or not, supposedly exist to protect us, not to punish us. So if road laws are enforced with any other intent than to keep traffic flowing and people safe, in my book that law is being used wrongfully.
September 13th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Personally, I don’t understand how officers can stand the stress of filling their expectations.
soon, at this rate, anything will be considered high risk driving.
I can se the next parking law will be exact millimteres between parked vehicles
we’ll all be seeing meter wardens taping distances between bumpers.
Just think of anything you can and you can be sure officialdom has already discussed it.
Taping; the new phenomenon for 2009
September 13th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
# Dewy(1)
“Police will give tickets to people where it’s easy to catch them rather than where the real fear of death or injury is.”
I am not sure what the fuss is about, if you don’t break the law, you don’t get a ticket, therefore there is no revenue to be gathered, rather simple logic I would have thought. A quota seems a simple way ensure that the police penalise the law breakers. Or is this a case of its OK to break the law because it doesn’t suit.
Dewy
I was driving back to Canterbury in a truck the other day, having just delivered a load of deer to the Hoki works. I was cruising along at 90 ks and quite happy I was not doing anything wrong. A cop going the other way turned around, came back and stopped me. He was civil enough but he held me up for 20 minutes while he checked my licence, log, truck and etc. I was civil to him too but I was bloody pissed off and offended that I had to sit there and go through this crap when I wanted to get the job done and back to my farm where I had heaps of work to do.
Are trucks easy targets to fill quotas? More chances of finding something out of place?
I am sick of this shit on the road … I am doing less and less driving and trying to get out of it altogether because of this bullshit. It’s bad enough on the road with all the dangerous drivers that the cops don’t seem to chase.
Fuck them!
September 13th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Or is this a case of its OK to break the law because it doesn’t suit.
Absolutely. Otherwise they will just keep making more and more stupid laws.
Never take any notice of bureaucrats. It only encourages them.
September 13th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
I am not sure what the fuss is about, if you don’t break the law, you don’t get a ticket, therefore there is no revenue to be gathered, rather simple logic I would have thought.
It’s that this law effects rich white born to rule males, mainstream new zealanders if you will? looking out to save thier own arses.
Laws against tagging great! get those cheeky little brown kids, laws against speeding? well ermm in my (rich white male) judgement what im doing is safe, not for every one else of course! but im a real New Zealander! what? what do you mean the law applies to me too?! DISCRIMINATION, I feel that rich white mainstream New Zealand males are the most discriminated against people in the history of New Zealand!!
He was civil enough but he held me up for 20 minutes while he checked my licence, log, truck and etc the part of the law which gives them the power to hold you on the side of the road says they can only hold you for 15 mins. And in the recent case that Allan Duff took against the crown they can’t hold you there while they radio in details and things like that. This could be different for trucks though.
September 13th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
All I can say is… Hunterville. A Sunday night heading back to Wellington. F-Me….
The tiniest piece of road works you have ever seen, a 30kph sign and a cop with Radar policing the 100m 30kph zone that was actually one single pot hole that might possibly warrant 80kph on a really bad day. Assholes. Sure clip the fast bastards, good move – but don’t slow us all down and increase the risk of accidents by plucking random safe drivers from a queue of people you have slowed down unnecessarily on a busy night. Tossers.
No quota my ass.
PS: I was not ticketed, just amazed at the operation that was in progress involving three police cars and a large stream of traffic banking up on state highway 1.
September 13th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Mike, you can grovel to our lawmakers – self-serving, power-hungry pack of manipulating, squabbling scoundrels that they are – if you like.
I’m never going to.
Spineless, gutless sheep are the enemies of freedom. And sooner or later get killed off by their masters.
Ready to be sent off to the next war are you?
September 13th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
You can put lipstick on a pig but it’s still a pig.
Completely off course but I thought it sounded funny.
September 13th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Kiki is that what happened to Helen????