Police road vigilance kills NZ teenager

Share |

This is an interesting story from the NZ Herald. A 17yo teenager, Fenn McCoach, want killed driving to school on NZ roads – distracted as he collided with a truck. The question is – what caused the distraction. There is no question in my mind that the driver was distracted by a police patrol car. This is the 'psychological war' upon speeding drivers. Not just speeding drivers, but drivers who drive near the speed limit and react instinctively when they are over or close to it. The police presence on the road is regarded as the reason why people don’t speed. I have a different perspective…that the punitive policy of fining speedsters causes anyone who drives close to the speed limit, who has ever received a speeding fine, to jump or ‘react’ when they see a road (police) patrol car, and then to become paranoid about whether they got caught or not. This results in them incessantly looking in their rear-view mirror to see if the police are following. In the meantime there car is careering over the double-lines into oncoming traffic.

The problem is two-fold:

1. Police rely on fear (of fines) – which is not a desirable response in a speeding car

2. Drivers are vague about the technology which police use, and they have imperfect knowledge about whether they have been fined.

So how ought police to respond to speeding. Well, they ought to trust in the judgement of the driver, and to adopt an education program which actually empowers people. Our entire education system is fear-punitive based, and this causes people to be defiant in their personal lives. It’s a sad reality than ‘boring responsible parents’ have simply lost the courage and conviction to fight against these silly punitive laws, which is destined to destroy their effectiveness as thinkers (in their broader social activities), as parents, and as moral agents in the community. The punitive, fear policies of our schools, parents and government are keeping us in a mini-Dark Ages. We want our kids to behave, but our societal strategy for achieving this end is counter-productive.

The risks do not end with the vigilance of police; it continues long after. I recall getting a speeding fine on a country drive. I was driving in freeway conditions, and I was driving up a 20deg inclination, 15kmph over the limit. I received a fine. It did not occur to me the reasons at the time. I was a little intimidated by the police officer because he is an authority figure. The cost of court is excessive, and no one expects justice from our system. We have all seen evidence of its failures. Justice dies when 'justice is not seen to have been done'.

For the next 500km of driving I was distracted by persistent anxiety about the unfairness of the system. That response lives with me today because I still think its wrong, and yet I am powerless to do anything about it. For that 500kms I was at risk of an accident because of an supposedly 'police' intervention which was intended to protect me. I am confident that I am going to die 5 years earlier not because of speed because I am a thinking person, with good judgement. I think I am going to die of heart failure or cancer because of the incessant anxieties that arbitrary statutory (legislative) law is placing me under. NZ is moving in the same direction as Australia. The expansion of statutory law is turning NZ into a police state. This means more discretionary power to police because arbitrary law only creates loopholes. That means greater misuse and distrust of the law. I think you can draw a parallel between refereeing a football game and government. When you have a referee intervening in the game, as a player, you just lose respect for the referee and interest in the game. The legislature in Western democracies is bringing about not only the death of teenagers, but the destruction of people's minds. The legislature is the 'fundamental problem'; as it is the basis of our centralised decision-making. All systems and even values tend to be shaped by it. Sadly this is the case because government destroys critical thinking skills through its control of public education. Religious institutional control of private education mean you have a very unsavoury choice for educating your kids.

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

New speed cameras for NZ

Share |

Speed cameras are without a doubt one of the most insidious devices invented. Why? Well, they persecute people for invalid reasons. Consider the facts:

1. Driver safety is contextual. The idea that you can place a camera on a road and click when people breach some arbitrary speed limit and declare that to be 'unsafe driving' is just fantasy. If people are to be perniciously persecuted for driving reasonable speeds, then that is bad, and it is going to bite society in the butt. The people most affected by these silly punitive measures are the poor. The problem however extends to the rich and educated as well, as they can more readily see the immorality of these devices. From them we can expect psychological repression.

2. Speed has no correlation with safety. People breach the speed limit for different reasons. Most people don't intend to exceed the speed limit; it just happens because they cannot watch their speedometer all the time.

3. Police cause a safety risk: The greater threat on the road is the police itself. Drivers who feel they can drive safely at speed, or drivers who hang about the speed limit are going to 'react' to the presence of speed cameras. This reaction will tend to cause accidents more than speeding. In those 5-10 seconds the conscious awareness of the driver is going to shift to the police presence, at the expense of their concentration upon on the road. One's eyes cannot help but focus on the police car in front or behind as he pursues you, before you pull over. I have even been 'caught' lapsing in judgement when police have pulled me over for a routine license, warranty of fitness or drink driving test, not because I have done anything wrong, but because I might have breached some arbitrary rule, and because they have these punitive powers. It is akin to being at school. It was wrong then, and its wrong now. The greater travesty is that the police do not even embrace these laws. I know police who flagrantly abuse road rules, knowing that they will not be fined by their colleagues. So there is a double standard as well.

In fairness, I will say that the new technologies which allow the police to monitor the speeds of cars over time frames rather than points is a fairer technology, but they still have a flaw. The punitive nature and arbitrary nature of these technologies remains significant flaws. The fact that police are rolling out these technologies is no stop-gap. The fact remains:

1. Drivers are the best judge of their speeds

2. Accidents are not speed-related as such, but more reflect the state-of-mind of the driver, who happens to be speeding. If you look at the speeds which result in accidents, they are drivers going 50kmph over the limit, not 10-20kmph. Alcohol and drugs are other issues, but still I do not believe speed cameras are the way to rein in peer group pressure, driving or drug taking. On the contrary, the punitive governments are adding to the problem, as opposed to solving it.

3. Punitive governments are oppressing fair-minded people, and compelling them to become defiant and law-breachers. It starts with fines, in progresses to court appearances and $5000-$50,000 fines, and it finally results in mass murders and psychologically scarred individuals with no regard for arbitrary rules.

The government is giving people reasons to externalise what would otherwise be personal problems, and rightfully so. It is not a poor decision to want to solve political problems. The problem is democracy gives them no recourse. We as a society are stuffed.

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

What to do with speeding fines

Share |

Having recently left Australia, one of the issues that was plaguing me was the silliness of government. Frankly I am not willing to repress my annoyance at these pathetic people, so I decided to protest from abroad. This was my response to their $80 penalty notice.

Dear NDM,
My brother contacted you without asking me. He probably wants me to pay. I asked him to send the notice to me because I am overseas. I am overseas because (in part) the poor state of justice in Australia. Worse than most semi-free countries. I actually don't intend to pay, though nor do intend to pay $12,000 for court action as some Victorians did fighting a silly law in Victoria. Actually I regard the whole issue of taxing speeding fines as illegitimate for several reasons. This is a constitutional matter so that is the proper place for it. The problems are:
1. The tax is a cynical exercise in taxation - there is no evidence to suggest 'speeding kills'. Road fatalities has more to do with teenagers trying to impress friends. I was pulled over by police overseas, they think Australian driving restrictions are a joke.
2. Speed policing actually increases road anxiety. For the next 3-4 hours after copping that camera I was in a state of stress. Why? Because its the 2nd time I was placed in a state of conflict over a silly process. Its the same with drink driving. I remember seeing recently a story of a guy on his 24th drink driving conviction. Miraculously the guy is still alive. I guess we are all just a bit more logical and reasonable than the government gives us credit for. These silly laws exist only because people do not challenge them. People tolerate them too much. I'm tired of it, so I left the country, rather than deal with your stupid fines.
3. Speed limits are non-contextual. They dont consider weather conditions, road conditions, vehicle weight, visibility, driver training/age/experience
4. I have no faith in the judiciary either because (a) judges are not directly accountable, merely accountable to another judge under appeal. Not good enough. (b) Judges are supposed to reach objective (rational) outcomes by interpreting arbitrary rules/laws, which makes no sense at all. Cases in the US with respect to taxation show that the judiciary in Western democracies apply a self-serving interpretation of the law. They are selective about the judgements they take as law. Basically contradictions are allowed. Of course, like you, they work for the government.
5. Judges and the judiciary was a lovely concept 300 years ago when laws were based on common law, which actually had some sense to it, some semblance of objectivity. Legislation is based on arbitrary rules/laws with no sense of reality at all. The public is divided - half believe they should be good slaves, the other half thinking they should pay a cynical tax because the govt would just use other means to reach the same ends. I reject all forms of slavery. It is not a user pay charge.

Thanks for the opportunity to be a slave; but I'll politely decline your offer. If you are not convinced by my arguments I would happily counsel your analysts or whatever thinkers you have in your department about the unethical framework in which you operate. I'd rather focus on being a productive human being, but the only productive human being are compliant slave by your standards. There was once a time when laws were about protecting the right of people, but the law has become so perverted that your concept of rights and obligations are claims on people. Your Human Rights commission is a joke. A theatrical performance to make it look like you actually care about the lives of people. So are your speeding laws. In any respect you seem intent on placing obstacles on the road. I don't speed by my judgement. I'm not an advocate of arbitrary, self-indulgent action, just I don't abide by rules imposed by others who have no sense.

regards,
Andrew
------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com