There is nothing that gets the blood boiling quite so much as hooning young people in fast cars who break the law with monotonous regularity and raise a big fat finger to authority and society in the process.
When those same people express their disdain by fleeing from police and innocent bystanders are killed in subsequent crashes, the blood tends to boil over.
One understands, on an emotional level, where Inspector Malcolm Johnston, of the Christchurch police, was coming from when he responded to a query about pursuit policy following a double fatality in the city.
"It's just absurd to suggest we shouldn't try to stop a maniac like this under these circumstances.
"What does the public of this country want the New Zealand police to do? This guy could have killed anybody at any time driving at that speed," he told a reporter.
The incident he was referring to occurred last Thursday evening.
It has been well-publicised, but here is an outline of the particulars in so far as they have been canvassed.
Following a workout at the Christchurch gym at which they were energetic regulars, Norm Fitt (73) and his partner, Dee Jordan (67), hopped into their Daihatsu Terios and drove home.
It was about 8.30pm.
They didn't make it.
Passing through an intersection, their car was struck by a Ford Mondeo which is said to have run a red light.
The Daihatsu was sent rolling several times before coming to rest.
The couple inside it were fatally injured.
Mr Fitt died on the spot; Dee Jordan survived just long enough to be cut out of the wreckage.
The 22-year-old man alleged to have been driving the Ford Mondeo was mildly injured.
He was charged on Friday with driving while disqualified and yesterday was granted a registrar's remand in the Christchurch District Court and will reappear before it on September 13.
On the night, he had been allegedly clocked by police driving at 89kmh in a 50kmh zone.
Initial reports suggest they turned to follow, signalling for the driver to stop.
The driver made as if to comply before speeding off, police say.
A pursuit then took place.
A witness, Makoto Kobayashi, told Christchurch newspaper The Press, that the police car and the pursued vehicle were at "absolute maximum speed".
"They were really speeding," he said.
Mr Fitt and Ms Jordan became the 12th and 13th fatalities incurred during police pursuits so far this year.
Police have recorded 1280 pursuits between January 1 and July 22, with crashes occurring in 199 cases.
In the last six years, there have been four internal reviews of police pursuit policies.
There has also been an Independent Police Conduct Authority review.
Contrary to the certainty of Insp Johnston as to the appropriateness of trying to "stop a maniac like this under these circumstances", the thrust of those reviews - and of widespread international practice - has increasingly been to establish the precise protocols under which such pursuits might take place.
This is largely because of the frequency in which pursuits end in fatalities, often, as in the Christchurch case, of innocent citizens.
As Justice Lowell Goddard put it on the release of the IPCA report in October last year, "Pursuits can begin over relatively minor offending, or general suspicion, and end in serious injury or death.
In such cases, the benefits from pursuing and stopping an offender do not appear to have outweighed the risks."
International police pursuit policies follow three distinct practices: judgemental, restrictive or discouragement. The first, judgemental, leaves the decisions surrounding pursuit up to the individual officer.
The third, discouragement, cautions against pursuit except in extreme circumstances, or for certain types of offences.
The second, restrictive, is the model followed since 2004 by the New Zealand Police.
Among other things, it places restrictions on police when initiating and continuing a pursuit, such as a "risk assessment before and during a pursuit and ensuring compliance with the overriding principle that public and staff safety take precedence over the immediate apprehension of the offender".
It also dictates that if the identity of the offender is known - and thus likely to be able to be apprehended later - pursuit should not be engaged.
This may all appear counterintuitive - particularly in that red-misted heat of the moment when taunting yahoos burn rubber - but in the colder light of day ...?
What does the public want the police to do?
As with much else to do with policing, these are complex matters, but surely the public want the police to follow that course of action which is least likely to endanger innocent lives, while taking steps - though not necessarily the most obvious ones - to apprehend law breakers.
This, as the police's own policies advise, may frequently mean taking a deep breath and not initiating hot pursuit.
Simon Cunliffe is assistant editor at the Otago Daily Times.
