A Labour policy I approve of
October 15th, 2010 at 1:00 pm by David FarrarAndrea Vance reports:
Drivers who try to outrun police should have their vehicle impounded and licence suspended on a first offence, Labour leader Phil Goff says.
So far this year 15 people have died on the roads during police pursuits. Police engage in 2500 pursuits every year and one in four of those ends up in a crash, Mr Goff said.
Mr Goff said a Labour government would tighten the laws on failure to stop. Current proposals involve tougher penalties for repeat offenders.
”But I believe that we need to act more strongly on the very first offence,” he said. ” I say the blame rests fairly and squarely with the drivers who are trying to outrun the police.”
Absolutely. Some welcome common sense.
He outlined three options to the Police Association in Wellington this morning.
- toughening up existing provisions in the law such as mandatory licence suspension and impoundment of a vehicle on a first offence
- failure to stop to become a qualifying offence under sections 128 and 129 of the Sentencing act 2002 – which means the offender’s vehicle would be a risk of confiscation
- a new law that introduces new offences with serious terms of imprisonment as a penalty, similar to one about to be passed in New South Wales
”You can’t afford to wait for two or three offences or for someone to die before you get serious. Drivers who fail to stop…don’t deserve a second chance.”
One strike and you’re out! I love it.
Fleeing the Police does need to carry incredibly high deterrents. Far too many die at the hands of these criminals.
Related posts:
- National’s law & order policy
- Police chases
- Police chases
- Labour abandons monetary policy bipartisanship
October 15th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Bugger. If he continues on with sense like this, he might actually stand a chance!
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Goff is right of course but I am completely confused about the reasons we continue to focus so strongly on driving in this country, and conduct so many debates, and introduce so much new and improved legislation, when large criminal gangs afford hardly any comment and very little police action.
Its as if its- lets make out we’re doing something by beating up driving issues while we sweep real crime under the carpet.
Sure its a good idea by Goff, and sure, maybe there is action needed somewhere in driving laws, but-
CAN’T IT WAIT UNTIL WE DEAL WITH THE MASSIVE PROBLEM OF CRIMINAL GANGS?????
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Redbaiter, is there any hope of dealing with gangs until the country adopts anti-drug laws more consistent with reality?
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Hey Red the gangs are too hard to deal with we have to concentrate on the driving issues first, then we will tackle the gangs.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
FFS, can’t police just be issued with RPG’s? Fleeing drivers should just be blown up immediately, they’ll probably die anyway and without sugar coating it the ideal situation is for them to do it cheaply and without involving bystanders.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Further to that policy: The police need to STOP apologising for giving chase to fleeing vehicles. They need to STOP saying things like, “We abandoned the pursuit 800m prior to the fatal accident”.
The police need to make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that *all* fleeing vehicles will be pursued. Relentlessly. And they will ALL be apprehended and brought to justice. There should be not even a hint of “if I drive fast/recklessly/danderously enough they will be forced to back off and let me get away” in their communication to the public.
And they need to remind the public every time that damage to property (and unfortunately, occasionally fatalities) is 100% caused by the fact that someone “did a runner”, NOT because the police did their jobs and engaged in a pursuit.
Well, that would be my policy in any case
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Where is Goff coming from he’s actually saying something with some substance!!!
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Gee he is a tough guy in opposition. Where were these ideas between 1999 and 2008?
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
I agree. We need more cop chases with news helicopters overhead bringing us those great shots when the chasee runs out of luck and hits a motorway overbridge.
Vote:Just as an aside. Does anyone else on KB have teenage kids who are addicted to Police 10-7 type shows?
October 15th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
I think the police should be allowed to carry guns and they should be given permission to shoot the tyres out of fleeing vehicles, so long as they are not endangering the public, these little s**** are terrorists on wheels.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
The police helicopters could carry small heat seeking missiles and blow the little b****** off the road B4 they kill someone.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
“Redbaiter, is there any hope of dealing with gangs until the country adopts anti-drug laws more consistent with reality?”
Like Singapore? I’m for it if you are.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Now that Garret is gone, Goff is pinching his ideas.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Or Japan, or Cuba, you stay out of circulation for a long time
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
@Brian
Absolutely. Promising the world in opposition.
You should hear the way Sue Moroney carries on in Hamilton.
Pandering to u21 students who have no political nouse.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
but I am completely confused about the reasons we continue to focus so strongly on driving in this country, and conduct so many debates, and introduce so much new and improved legislation, when large criminal gangs afford hardly any comment and very little police action.
Because you can fine people for traffic offenses, but not breaking into a house, or robbing a 4 Square.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Gee he is a tough guy in opposition. Where were these ideas between 1999 and 2008?
Same place they will be when they finally get re-elected. Stored away in the closet.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Agreed bhudson. National and Labour have positioned themselves so much into the middle that they might as well be a single party these days, however these seemingly small policy differences speak loudly to average Kiwi Voters and provide Goff with a real potential for Goff to gain traction unless the Government responds.
Red while I agree Gangs are a huge problem I personally feel me and my family are more likely to be impacted by a drunk/speeding/fleeing driver than I am by a Gang Member.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Have a look at these two sites and see if you still think that-
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_vic-crime-total-victims
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
As much as I like Goff’s thinking here (I’ll go ahead and assume it is Goff’s thinking and not something from a HawkerBritton focus group), I agree with Red’s comments. What about giving police real power to break the criminal gangs? They are, after all, domestic terrorists. It would also be nice if our politicians would side with police (and law & order) and not with gangs (thanks Pita Sharples).
BTW, if Goff trying to manoeuver Liarbore to take over the “tough on crime” tag now that Garrett is gone from ACT? Good move if he could pull it off – move Liarbore to the Right and leave National on the Left! It isn’t like there isn’t a gaping hole on the Right at the moment.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
These little boy racers are little urban terrorists using their cars as weapons, nail the lot of them and make NZ a more pleasant place to live. I’m over it.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Just as Capital Punishment is widely seen as having very little deterrent effect, enacting tougher repercussions for attempting to flee the police will be equally ineffective. These little scroats know if they create a little danger to others the pursuit will be called off. We need therefore to get more certainty that the pursuit will be successful and THEN couple it with the much tougher cosequences.
Vote:More use of Eagles and although the costs are very high the costs we are incurring with the horrendous costs of the appalling outcomes from these destructives is already very large.
How expensive would drones be as mobile eye in the sky options.
October 15th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
It’s fine for Goff to be talking tough on the eve of the Labour Party’s coference, but has he tested the waters with caucus on this policy? Somehow, I doubt it; there are way too many liberals in Labour who are anti-police and anti-establishment. Judith Collins however will be delighted that Goff supports her when she rolls out just such a policy.
And what will the paid lap-bloggers at The Standard say? Three Strikes was a huge infringement of their civil liberties; this will go down like a cup of cold sick
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
The only Labour policy I would approve of is buying themselves a one-way ticket to Eritrea.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
@ NickB – I wouldn’t wish the Labour Party on the people of Eritrea …
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Sorry Red the slides don’t change my opinion.
The Gangs while hideous the crime they are involved with does not largely effect “innocents” but rather Gang associates, Criminal Partners, Criminal Drug Users etc. By the time “innocents” do get effected its generally for property type offences, theft burglary etc.
Car crimes can effect anyone. You or any one of your loved can be taken out just as easily or as indiscriminately as anybody because some idiot decides they’re not going to pull over, not drink, get a license etc etc.
Both should have extreme action taken against them, however Car crimes can be dealt with quickly and cheaply which is why I would prioritise them higher than the gangs.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
A vaguely sensible idea….
… Just heard from the Devil, the new ice rink is going well.
One idea, any car that successfully makes a runner, when eventually tracked down, be subject to even greater punishment, i.e. get rid of any motivation to do a run…
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
You mean the survivors. In general those involved have their vehicles automatically crushed and are rendered incapable of driving for ever, these ‘penalties’ being generally automatically applied on impact with a big thud, bang, wallop.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
They are not “police pursiuts”, they are “offender pursiuts”.
Untill such time as they are reported as being such the media will continue to blame the police every single bloody time that some asswipe runs.
they should be dragge of their cars and shot on the side of the road if we really want to stop running as being a first choice option. Instead we tell them that if they run fast enough and are dangerous enough we will let them get away with.
Not really working out so well at the moment is it.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Those are excellent policies, but will they be teamed with a standing instruction that police are not to pursue at high speed, especially through residential areas? More police cars on the roads (not parked atthe side of the road with radars in them all day, then off home by tea time) would allow roadblocks and other traps ahead of the driver. Another helicopter or two, armed with night vision, would also help. All those traffic fines must have paid for several by now.
After all, as Goff notes:
That’s 625 avoidable crashes. I wonder what proportion of those involve innocent drivers and pedestrians?
Instead of feeding the fleeing idiot’s desire for a bit of fun evading the police, identify them (by sight, by registration if they’re “hooning” in their own car, by DNA and other evidence if it’s a stolen vehicle) and then arrest them at leisure. Then penalise the hell out of them – imprisonment, vehicle confiscation, lengthy loss of licence (or permanently, for repeat offenders).
Much better than the crims and the coppers getting an adrenalin boost from a bit of high speed fun and someone else dying to pay for it.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 3:34 pm
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing trying to get a different result.
The Government need to do some real thinking, they either toughen up and deal to these little c**** or have a none pursuit policy and track them down later and confiscate the cars and then crush them, no questions asked, they will be squealing back to their mummies saying it is not fair!!!
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
But perhaps not a policy that social-democratic lefties will agree with?
It seems to be another round in the “tough on crime” auction that Dame Sian Elias warned against…
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
…Redbaiter, is there any hope of dealing with gangs until the country adopts anti-drug laws more consistent with reality?
You mean like admitting the war on drugs is a losing battle based on an immoral premise and that full legalization is the only real option….? I wish but fat chance.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Bit of a red herring as failing to stop almost inevitably is combined with dangerous (usually reckless) driving which does result in loss of licence (minimum 6 months) and IS a qualifying offence so well done Phil you’ve just solved a non problem. (And in those rare occasions that there is no dangerous driving – I actually had one where the chap just didn’t stop despite following all road rules – a fine is probably enough as there is no real danger to police or public).
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
How stupid.
This is on a par with increasing the penalty for attempted suicide. When you’re willing to risk death, who is going to pay any attention to whether the penalty for failure is a fine or a license suspension?
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
According to Collins the police are addressing some of the gang problems
Can’t expect instant results but it at least seems to be getting some results. Increased police numbers will be helping – there needs to be sufficient resources and reasonable laws to achieve anything significant.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
“You mean like admitting the war on drugs is a losing battle ”
James why do you keep saying that when it isn’t true. Singapore has been very successful in controlling illegal drugs. I might even support you in that cause but I will not support an obvious lie.
That’s the trouble with you so called Libertarians. All you are really interested in is legalising drugs and homosexual marriage and you will allow no improvements to pass your judgment unless they acknowledge those two obsessions, and you have no other strategy other than a strategy to advance them.
The war on drugs can be won. Like the war on gangs it is a matter of will. The will of our citizens has been destroyed by the doctrine of moral equivalency and other Progressive mantras. There was no drug problem until Progressive politics took hold. Why is that Jimmy?
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Surely worth a mention, if it hasn’t already been above, that the reason outrunning police has become so popular is because of rule change against police chasing a vehicle in a situation that’s sufficiently dangerous. That rule raised the incentive to run, as fast as possible, from police.
So yes this new law is required, but please note it is needed as a result of some law making by some one who doesn’t understand incentives. Which, to be fair, is pretty much every New Zealander.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
It’s all very well Phil Goff blaming the drivers for responding quite rationally to the incentives now before them to run away from the cops. Where did those incentives to run come from? Now I could be wrong but I’m guessing the rule limiting the right of police to chase came from a Labour government, in response to a bit of bad press about police chases that threatened their re-election.
It’s so easy to blame the bad guys, the fleeing driver, but there’s a real shoot the messenger aspect to it. If you’re the one who put the incentive to run in front of them – that would be you, Phil – then I think you have to look at yourself first. You can’t wave a $20 bill in front of people and then call them names for taking it.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Redbaiter asserts:
Wasn’t aware till now that the Chinese emperor Shen Nung (approximately 2695 BCE) was a Progressive. Old Sheng was a bit of a druggy it seems, reputedly tasting 365 herbs before dying from a toxic overdose.
Among the plants he sampled was Ma Huang, now called Ephedra sinica. This contains a number of alkaloids, chief of which, ephedrine, was isolated by the Japanese chemist Nagai in 1887. This is, of course, the basis for legal and illegal ephedrine-based compounds including methamphetamine.
The Chinese book Pen Tsao (Herbal Medicines) of 5000 BC recommends the opium poppy for sleep, so clearly Sheng wasn’t the only stoner around at that time.
Then there’s the Pre-Columbian Mexicans who used many substances, from tobacco to hallucinogenic plants, including “sacred mushrooms” belonging to Psilocybe species and containing hallucinogens (psilocine, psilocybin), which today we’d call “magic mushrooms”. And let’s not forget peyote.
Oh, and of course cocaine, the potential for addiction to which was known and used by South American Indian chiefs hundreds of years ago. They provided their messengers with coca leaves to give them energy to run vast distances at high altitudes, and then enslaved them further by paying them with more coca leaves. The when coca leaves reached Europe with the Spanish conquistadors, they led to one of the first European waves of euphoric hallucinogenic drugs.
There’s numerous other examples of course. Which is a long way of saying that mind-altering substances have been round since the dawn of time, as has the motivation of a significant section of the population to misuse those substances and of a smaller section of the population to benefit themselves by supplying that urge.
Neither “progressive” nor prohibitive policies have ever worked and frankly, I’m not sure what will in terms of removing the urge to get high (there are, however, sensible things we can do around the law relating to drug use vs drug supply, and so on).
To lay the blame for drug addiction at the feet of Progressive politics is to deny human nature and, unfortunately, close oneself off to trying to find a workable and lasting solution (which I don’t claim to have, BTW).
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
I always thought Goff had parrot-like features – see the cut and paste politician
Vote:http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz/
October 15th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
“Wasn’t aware till now that the Chinese emperor Shen Nung (approximately 2695 BCE) was a Progressive.”
Why do you need to distort the context of what I said? I’ll tell you. Because you don’t have an argument that confronts my claim.
Of course I am aware the drugs have been used widely in different regions at different times in history. I’m talking about NZ and our history since the middle of the last century when we first began to embrace Progressive politics. I suggest you keep to the real issue or you’re just blowing smoke.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
Sounding more and more like ill thought desperate dog whistling from Goff…
Impound the cars of fleeing drivers eh Goff?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4237324/Impound-fleeing-drivers-cars-Goff
But aren’t the vast majority of drivers that flee from Police chases driving stolen cars? I’m sure the actual owner wouldn’t be too thrilled with the Police impounding their car all because some thief decided to try and outrun the cops!
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
Red, I’m not distorting the context of what you’ve said. You said:
Now even if we’re meant to assume an unsaid “…in New Zealand, in this century…” (and whatever other qualifiers you want to add) between “problem” and “until” I’d argue you’re still wrong. Because, as I pointed out, people have had a perverse desire to consume mind-altering and often dangerous substances since history started to be written. The prevalence of that consumption has more to do with supply (of which law and law enforcement is only a small and relatively ineffectual part), the advent of cheap air travel and a host of other factors.
A small-l liberal attitude to drug taking certainly affects its uptake amongst what I’d call the “poseur” users, who see cocaine, say, as a status symbol akin to a Rolex. But the vast majority of drug use is amongst people for whom it becomes a major, or sometimes only, expense. Their taking the drug has nothing to do with the permissive or disapproving messages emanating from our lawmakers or law enforcers.
That idiots still bring drugs into countries where the penalty for so doing is death just proves that.
Trying to ban drugs and/or steadily increasing penalties for their possession or use is, therefore, fighting against human nature. It’s like trying to outlaw sex (though I know there’s some conservatives that’d vote for that, too). Acknowledging that, as I do, isn’t promoting drug use or even condoning it. It’s trying to understand the drivers so they can be combatted, and the scourge of drugs eliminated.
The answer lies not in progressive or conservative politics but somewhere within the psychology of addiction, which is why I admit to not having the answer.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
“The answer lies not in progressive or conservative politics.”
Wrong. Progressive politics is dehumanizing. That is what is behind an increase in drug use that basically runs along side an increase in socialism. It is not drug laws that make drug use so minimal in Singapore but a lack of Progressives politics.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
“Sounding more and more like ill thought desperate dog whistling from Goff…”
That’s what I thought too Bevan and you know it’s funny isn’t it that suddenly people start thinking he’s actually not mental after all, when what it really is is statistics in action.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 8:14 pm
Singapore has been very successful in controlling illegal drugs.
Sure – all that’s needed is a sufficiently intrusive and authoritarian police state. Why, oh why are people in NZ so reluctant to go down such an obviously beneficial path? It’s just a complete mystery…
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
“Sure – all that’s needed is a sufficiently intrusive and authoritarian police state.”
I’ve lived there. Its a breeze compared to the over taxing over regulating drug soaked crime ridden violence saturated welfare addicted bureaucrat crazed hole people like you have made of New Zealand.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
The technology to solve the problem exists. Drone spy aircraft. If the car does not stop immediately, the police do not chase, instead the drone in the sky latches on and follows the car anywhere it goes with Infra-Red cameras, and uses GPS technology to transmit its location. When it eventually stops the police turn up and confiscate the vehicle. Simple as that. Chances are they will gather enough evidence to locate and arrest the driver. Word will quickly get around that the only possible way to keep your car is to stop immediately, and soon behaviour will change. Sure it would cost a lot. But what are the lives of innocent bystanders worth? (And it would make compelling reality TV!!)
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Pete, BTW, that wasn’t a dig at you, above.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 9:31 pm
I’ve lived there. Its a breeze…
Of course. As an authoritarian yourself, naturally an intrusive, authoritarian police state was an enjoyable place for you to live. However, not many in NZ would share the enthusiasm.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 10:16 pm
False allegations and smears.. do the left ever have anything else????
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 10:33 pm
*citation needed.
Ironic how the left have the cheek to call Singapore authoritarian, after the numerous breaches of the rule of law, constitutional propriety, and civil liberties during their beloved Clark government. Let’s list a few, shall we Milt?
Electoral Finance Act
Retrospectively validating the Duynhoven situation
Foreshore and Seabed Act (haven’t you heard of Parliamentary sovereignty, asks Michael Cullen)
The theft of $800,000 of taxpayers money to fund Labour’s pledge card.
Propped up in coalition by proven liar and puppet of big business, Winston Peters.
the list could go on for weeks. One thing is for sure, I would place a fuckload more faith in the PAP to run a country efficiently and freely than the inane bunch of morons in our current House.
I would also feel a huge amount safer walking down the street at night over there than in some of the streets of NZ
Vote:October 16th, 2010 at 1:53 am
Sorry Phil and others it is not going to work for two reasons:
1. Most drivers who do runners are disqualified drivers already.
2. A large number are in stolen cars.
The best way is to have:
1. Automatic 1 year non parole jail term for drivers who run from the Police.
Vote:2. Automatic 6 month non parole jail term for any passengers and known accomplices.
October 16th, 2010 at 6:59 am
Nickb: you mean, Redbaiter isn’t the only right-wing authoritarian in NZ? I’m gobsmacked!
pdm: it is hilarious that they come with punishments like disqualification and fines for the munters who do this, when said munters are often ignoring existing disqualifications and have unpaid fines. You’re a bit unfair on the passengers, though – they may not have had a whole lot of choice in the matter, unless the car’s stolen.
Vote:October 16th, 2010 at 10:10 am
I recall when GOFF was shadow Justice Minister before the Clark Government. He went on a campaign promissing to toughen up all sorts of penalties for recidivist criminals. He did too. Then he reduced the non parole period from two thirds to one third of the penalty imposed.
Vote:October 17th, 2010 at 2:42 am
Headlines should not read as “POLICE PURSUITS”, but should read “FLEEING TERRORISTS”, these cars are loaded guns ready to exterminate innocent people.
These little C**** have no respect for the laws or fellow human beings in this country.
Vote:October 17th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
I’m no lefty and I think Singapore is an over the top authoritian police state…to a degree.But since I’m a CONSISTENT supporter of individual freedom and personal responsibility I would think that….the facts say it is so.
Red is a selective, fair-weather friend of freedom ( for certain people, on certain issues) and its therefore no suprise he like Singapore as it is…..while I would modify it a bit.
Vote: