Ouch! - no more bike!!.

[scumdog]

Not sure if this should be here or on Rant and Raving but here goes anyway.

Down here in redneck country things are done a little different at times, viz:

Todays Court news:
"A 26 year old was fined $800 for refusing to reveal who was riding his motorbike at 170kph in a 50kph area in Invercargill.
The Judge ordered the motorbike to be destoyed".

Hmmm, that was one expensive runner eh?.:wait:

[Colapop]

Be great if they did that to boy racers cars too!

[Finn]

Oh this should be good... :corn:

Edit: It's good defence though... "Is wasn't me, it was the bike"

[chanceyy]

hmmm thought rogue animals were destroyed .. but how does one destroy a bike ?? take the battery out and shoot it ??

[Str8 Jacket]

hmmm thought rogue animals were destroyed .. but how does one destroy a bike ?? take the battery out and shoot it ??

I heard a rumour that they were giving them to Dover....

[Ixion]

Only if it's a Suzuki. CBRs they give to Postie. And Yamahas are indestructable.

[bobsmith]

I love this fucking country....

Guilty until proven innocent huh???

[The_Dover]

Only if it's a Suzuki. CBRs they give to Postie. And Yamahas are indestructable.

Nah, yamahas are just shit and fall apart.

[James Deuce]

I love this fucking country....

Guilty until proven innocent huh???

Err no. He's guilty of not answering a perfectly acceptable request for the name of the person riding it. There's a legal issue right there.

Don't dob in your mates, eh? Bet you his "mate" doesn't buy him a new bike. In fact I'll bet you a whole box of chocolate fish on that one.

[Finn]

Err no. He's guilty of not answering a perfectly acceptable request for the name of the person riding it. There's a legal issue right there.

Don't dob in your mates, eh? Bet you his "mate" doesn't buy him a new bike. In fact I'll bet you a whole box of chocolate fish on that one.

It's probably cause he is his mate.

[Postie]

I have a question and its sort of similar to this. I got a speeding ticket in the mail for 61K's in a 50 for $80, as far as I can remember, someone was test driving my car but I don't have the contact number for who it was and even if I did, how would I be able to prove that it was the test driver and not me?

[sels1]

Bet you his "mate" doesn't buy him a new bike.

Unless he's one of those wealthy Southland farmers....it would be small change to them....probably on the books as a farm bike- complete with tax write off!

[Blackbird]

Doing 170 in a 50 limit deserves no sympathy at all and it doesn't do the rest of us any favours. It probably rules out a Harley then Scumdog? :nya: The open road is a bit different **blush**.

[Str8 Jacket]

I have a question and its sort of similar to this. I got a speeding ticket in the mail for 61K's in a 50 for $80, as far as I can remember, someone was test driving my car but I don't have the contact number for who it was and even if I did, how would I be able to prove that it was the test driver and not me?

I m no help with how you would prove that someone esle was riding all I know is that you need to try and sort this BEFORE it comes to court or you will have no choice but to pay it. Give the Police Infringements Beareau a call on 0800 105 777 and ask them. Good luck.

[ManDownUnder]

I have a question and its sort of similar to this. I got a speeding ticket in the mail for 61K's in a 50 for $80, as far as I can remember, someone was test driving my car but I don't have the contact number for who it was and even if I did, how would I be able to prove that it was the test driver and not me?

Ask for the photo/evidence?

[Postie]

Ask for the photo/evidence?

ah ha, good idea.
thanks

[McJim]

Looks as though he didn't have the right to remain silent after all.

[Motu]

It was probably a Cop - they never dob their mates in....

[Edbear]

I'm with Blackbird on this one. ("Cept for the Harley bit, I think Scummy can get it up that high...:innocent: )170 in a 50 is pretty hard to justify, and yeah, I'd be interested in what type of mates he's got or if it was just him not wanting to admit it?:nono:

[madboy]

...170 in a 50 is pretty hard to justify...It's also pretty hard to get caught doing that speed. Did no one here do economics, or even maths at school? Perhaps it's a shitter bike. Might be cheaper to sacrifice the bike than it was to take the fines, disq and insurance costs. There's a fair few thousand in itself.

[**R1**]

It's also pretty hard to get caught doing that speed. Did no one here do economics, or even maths at school? Perhaps it's a shitter bike. Might be cheaper to sacrifice the bike than it was to take the fines, disq and insurance costs. There's a fair few thousand in itself.Yeah i was thinking about the cost thing....How is it fair for say sum1 thats saved for years to buy a MV1000, and sum1 thats payed $500 for a shitta and they both have their bikes destroyed for simmilar offences.....It would seem realy unfair to me, i cant see how it would be any differnt from one guy paying a $500 fine and one paying a $38000 fine for the same offence...

[madboy]

"Fairness" in respect of our legal system is a subjective term highly influenced by whether the judge likes the defendent or not, has had sex in the last 2 weeks (with or without his/her spouse involved), and which direction his golf handicap is heading.

[McJim]

Please supply a reason with negative bling - don't need your identity - just a reason. Cheers:second:

[Darryboy]

Not saying it's right in this case but I've seen plenty of ridiculous 50k zones that could easily be an open road. In fact there was one road that was an open road, there were no accidents yet it was still lowered to 50k for several months before being raised to 80.

[James Deuce]

Looks as though he didn't have the right to remain silent after all.

He was in court, not being arrested.

[spudchucka]

Looks as though he didn't have the right to remain silent after all.Section 118 Land Transport Act 1998.


118.Owner or hirer to give information as to identity of driver or passenger—

(1)If an enforcement officer has reasonable cause to believe that the driver of a vehicle has committed an offence while in charge of the vehicle, the officer may request the owner or hirer of the vehicle to give all information in his or her possession or obtainable by him or her which may lead to the identification and apprehension of the driver of the vehicle.

(2)If an enforcement officer has reasonable cause to believe that a passenger of a vehicle has committed an offence in or through the use of the vehicle where that use relates to the commission of the offence or the aiding of the commission of the offence or the assisting of that passenger to avoid arrest in connection with or conviction for that offence, the officer may request the owner or hirer of the vehicle to give all information which may lead to the identification and apprehension of the passenger.

(3)A request under subsection (1) or subsection (2) may be made orally or in writing and the owner or hirer (as the case may be) must comply with the request within 14 days.

(4)If a vehicle has been used to flee a Police pursuit, an enforcement officer may request the owner of the vehicle to give all information in his or her possession or obtainable by him or her which may lead to the identification and apprehension of the driver, and the owner must give the officer that information immediately.

(5)Subsection (4) does not apply if the owner has been arrested or detained in relation to the suspected offence.

You'll note subsection 5 above, where the owner has been arrested for the offence in question it doesn't apply.

You'll also not below section 23(4)(a)&(b) of the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990, which clearly states that persons arrested or detained under enactment have the right to refrain from making any statement, (eg: shutting their stupid mouths).


23.Rights of persons arrested or detained—

(1)Everyone who is arrested or who is detained under any enactment—

(a)Shall be informed at the time of the arrest or detention of the reason for it; and

(b)Shall have the right to consult and instruct a lawyer without delay and to be informed of that right; and

(c)Shall have the right to have the validity of the arrest or detention determined without delay by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the arrest or detention is not lawful.

(2)Everyone who is arrested for an offence has the right to be charged promptly or to be released.

(3)Everyone who is arrested for an offence and is not released shall be brought as soon as possible before a court or competent tribunal.

(4)Everyone who is—

(a)Arrested; or

(b)Detained under any enactment—

for any offence or suspected offence shall have the right to refrain from making any statement and to be informed of that right.

(5)Everyone deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the person.

[Bend-it]

Ok, instead of getting finicky and looking for loopholes in the letter of the law, I'd prefer to think of whether or not it's 'right'.

If person is responsible (a concept that seems to elude many these days) for the bike, then he can either own up to it, or say who did it. Or say the responsibility was taken off him because it was stolen.

The bike was taken off him basically because he was not responsible for it, as should be the case because it can be a dangerous machine!

He can defend the dangerous driving (riding) charge for all its worth, but it didn't even get there!

We're getting testy about this 'coz it's bikes and we're a bike forum. But if it was a case of child abuse or rape and we got someone who was aiding but not the actual purpetrator, I'll bet the sentiments would be different.

Different example, but same principle.

[Lou Girardin]

, but same principle.

If we're going to talk principles, what about the principle of protection against self-incrimination? Or even the right to silence.
More protections given away because it's only traffic offences.

[SuperDave]

Only if it's a Suzuki. CBRs they give to Postie. And Yamahas are indestructable.

You're right, no matter how hard Gareth tries his R6 still goes...

[texmo]

Shouldnt they sell the bike rather than destroy it? I mean it could pay for somebodys doll out there.

[Ixion]

I am confused about the authority under which the bike was destroyed.

A vehicle can be confiscated where some serious driving offences have occured

But as I understand it no such charges were laid in this case? Because the police were unable to identify the driver . So they charged the owner under Sect 14 with failing to provide particulars

As I read it the LTA 1998 Sect 44 provides the penalty for that offence, and the penalty is a maximum fine of $10000. No mention of confiscation. Which presumbly is the reason for the very high maximum fine. And the owner was accordingly fined, $1500.

So how did the bike get confiscated?

[spudchucka]

I am confused about the authority under which the bike was destroyed.

A vehicle can be confiscated where some serious driving offences have occured

But as I understand it no such charges were laid in this case? Because the police were unable to identify the driver . So they charged the owner under Sect 14 with failing to provide particulars

As I read it the LTA 1998 Sect 44 provides the penalty for that offence, and the penalty is a maximum fine of $10000. No mention of confiscation. Which presumbly is the reason for the very high maximum fine. And the owner was accordingly fined, $1500.

So how did the bike get confiscated?
I'd say it has more to do with the Sentencing Act 2002, section 128. Not entirely sure how the judge managed it but good on him I reckon.

[Ixion]

Sentencing Act 2002

128.Confiscation of motor vehicle—

(1)This section applies if a person is convicted of any of the following offences:

(a)an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of more than 12 months, or by imprisonment for life:

(b)an offence against any of the provisions of sections 35(1)(a), 35(1)(b), [36A(1)(a) or (c),] 38(1), 39(1), or 56 to 60 of the Land Transport Act 1998 (which relate to driving offences).

(2)A court may exercise the power in subsection (3) if a person is convicted of an offence referred to in subsection (1) and the court by or before which the offender is convicted is satisfied that any motor vehicle owned by the offender or in which the offender has any interest at the time of conviction—

(a)was used to commit or facilitate the commission of the offence, whether or not the offender was the driver or person in charge; or

(b)in the case of an offence against any of the provisions of sections 35(1)(a), 35(1)(b), 36(1)(a), [36A(1)(a) or (c),] 38(1), 39(1), and 56 to 62 of the Land Transport Act 1998, was being driven by, or in the charge of, the offender at the material time; or

(c)was used by the offender, whether or not the offender was the driver or person in charge, to facilitate the offender's flight or avoid his or her detection or arrest after the commission of the offence.



But but but. The offences specified are basically careless, reckless, and drink driving. And if someone is convicted of those their vehicle can be confiscated. Fair enough .

But, surely, here noone was so convicted, that being the whole point of the "refuse to name" thing?

Don't really have any issue with the result, suspect that Percy still got off lightly. Just puzzled how the judge managed to squeeze it into the law.

Shouldn't have been destroyed , either, act says it must be sold. But that might be dodgy reporting, papers often get stuff wrong.

[spudchucka]

But but but. The offences specified are basically careless, reckless, and drink driving. And if someone is convicted of those their vehicle can be confiscated. Fair enough .
Yes, exactly, which is why I said I wasn't sure how the judge arrived at that decision. However, the bike had clearly been involved in such an offence, the only issue was who was in control of it at the time. I guess the judge just convicted the bike and sentenced it to death?

Section 139 of the same act says something about the court registrar can dispose of the bike in any way he / she sees fit if it isn't in a saleable condition.

[McJim]

Section 139 of the same act says something about the court registrar can dispose of the bike in any way he / she sees fit if it isn't in a saleable condition.
Yeah - I think some strange interpretations of the legislation may have been made by the judge in this instance - If the bike can do 170kph then surely it would be sellable. A better route for New Zealand law to take would be if a vehicle is clocked exceeding the speed limit the driver is automatically cited with all penalties UNLESS they can provide proof that another person was driving the vehicle at the time. I believe this is how it works back in blighty but never having broken the speed limit myself I have no idea. PLEASE NOTE THIS IS MERELY AN OPINION OR SUGGESTION NOT A CRITICISM so please don't gimme any more annonymous unexplained red bling.
Be aware that I will often place posts that are not necessarily my opinion as I believe all points of view should be voiced - that is the purpose is it not of a forum?

[spudchucka]

Yeah - I think some strange interpretations of the legislation may have been made by the judge in this instance - If the bike can do 170kph then surely it would be sellable.
At that time no doubt it was in a reasonable condition but that would have been several months ago now. Anything could have happened to it betwen the time the incident happened and now.

[scumdog]

I am confused about the authority under which the bike was destroyed.

A vehicle can be confiscated where some serious driving offences have occured

But as I understand it no such charges were laid in this case? Because the police were unable to identify the driver . So they charged the owner under Sect 14 with failing to provide particulars

As I read it the LTA 1998 Sect 44 provides the penalty for that offence, and the penalty is a maximum fine of $10000. No mention of confiscation. Which presumbly is the reason for the very high maximum fine. And the owner was accordingly fined, $1500.

So how did the bike get confiscated?

How did the bike get confiscated?
Because the Judge was not a trendy left wing soft-cock liberal Dorkland 'slap-on-the-wrist' type.

This is red-neck territory and at times 'real' justice prevails.

F*ck the slack-jawed mouth-breathing drongo that thought he would 'staunch' it with the Judge, he LOST!!!!

Don't come down here unless you can face the music.

P.S. This guy was lucky, last guys got fined $1,500 for 'doing nothing'

[Gremlin]

Ask for the photo/evidence?
Wait till the cop you question says it was him that saw it. As easy as that sounds, now imagine having your word against his... :weep:

[Lou Girardin]

F*ck the slack-jawed mouth-breathing drongo that thought he would 'staunch' it with the Judge, he LOST!!!!


The Judge better hope that he is and that he's too stupid to get a big city lawyer or else Mr Drongo might be getting a new bike.

[scumdog]

The Judge better hope that he is and that he's too stupid to get a big city lawyer or else Mr Drongo might be getting a new bike.

Pah, this IS redneck territory down here Lou, crap like above only happens on TV - or Auckland.