What qualifies as "unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration on a road"?

[khabel]

So the boy racer act has this in it You must not operate a motor vehicle in a race or in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration on a road (unless authorised by law).

http://www.police.govt.nz/service/ro...erdetails.html

That got me thinking, what qualifies as a unnecessary exhibition of acceleration as long as I dont break the speed limit or wheel spin?

Do they compare my acceleration to the old lady in a morris minor next to me?

Anyone able to elaborate on this a bit?

[BoristheBiter]

The bit that got my attention was this.

If you kill or injure someone while illegally racing, the penalties increase to a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment, or a fine not exceeding $20,000, and a minimum period of disqualification of 1 year.

Seems a bit of a let off to me.

[Lelitu]

So the boy racer act has this in it You must not operate a motor vehicle in a race or in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration on a road (unless authorised by law).

http://www.police.govt.nz/service/ro...erdetails.html

That got me thinking, what qualifies as a unnecessary exhibition of acceleration as long as I dont break the speed limit or wheel spin?

Do they compare my acceleration to the old lady in a morris minor next to me?

Anyone able to elaborate on this a bit?

that is a damned good question. we all know bikes accelerate much faster than cars if you let them.
but does johnny popo know that?

[Ender EnZed]

that is a damned good question. we all know bikes accelerate much faster than cars if you let them.
but does johnny popo know that?

Yes.

what qualifies as a unnecessary exhibition of acceleration as long as I dont break the speed limit or wheel spin?

Whatever the cop decides.

[davereid]

So the boy racer act has this in it You must not operate a motor vehicle in a race or in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration on a road (unless authorised by law).

http://www.police.govt.nz/service/ro...erdetails.html

That got me thinking, what qualifies as a unnecessary exhibition of acceleration as long as I dont break the speed limit or wheel spin?

Do they compare my acceleration to the old lady in a morris minor next to me?

Anyone able to elaborate on this a bit?

This is an attitude test.

The popo can apply it to anything they want. Its not tested by the courts until after the bulk of the penalty is applied, so the police can, and do just use it as a broad brush way of kicking your arse.

I was on a ride, no one was breaking any speed limits, and the police used the "you were racing, do as I say or I will impound your bike" thing, as several of us just wanted to watch a dodgy ticket being given to another non speeding member of our group.


So don't expect a standard, it will be used if you fail the attitude test regardless of your actual driving behavior.

[avgas]

My argument over this went like this;
"That was excessive acceleration"
"No it wasn't"
"Yes it was"
"How long until I hit 50kph?"
"A couple of seconds"
"A couple? Like 2 or 3 or 4?"
"A couple, like 2-3 - you have a bad attitude"
"This bike does 0-100 in 3 seconds, you have stated I did halve that speed in the same time. I can claim that is not excessive - its half of what the manufacturer considers excessive"
....

He then checked everything could on the bike, and me. And let me off on a 'warning'.
I would not recommend my approach - but I had a bad day and was getting pulled over for not doing anything wrong.

[Scuba_Steve]

Stay in speed limits & don't break any other rules & you can't be done for it (the exemption as law)

In this section and in section 96(9), the operation of a motor vehicle in a particular manner is authorised by law if,—
(a) in the case of a race or an exhibition of speed or acceleration,—
(i) the speed of the vehicle is within the applicable speed limit or speed limits; and
(ii) the vehicle operator does not contravene any enactment other than this section that applies in relation to the operation of the vehicle;

[davereid]

Stay in speed limits & don't break any other rules & you can't be done for it (the exemption as law)

But the bulk of the penalty is applied BEFORE guilt is proven.

Therefore if the Popo alleges it happened, then you wear the penalty.

Subsequently proving you didn't do it will be of little value.

[5150]

They can't charge you if they can't catch you

[HenryDorsetCase]

But the bulk of the penalty is applied BEFORE guilt is proven.

Therefore if the Popo alleges it happened, then you wear the penalty.

Subsequently proving you didn't do it will be of little value.

yep. Its fascism in action. but being Kiwis we're all like "Yeah, nah, its OK, you only have to worry about that if you're a boi ricer and they're scum" All it takes is a difference of opinion and the full force of the knee of the state lands in the scrotum of the oppressed public. A subsequent (Court) review and being found unguilty is not cool.

its way too subjective.

Any of the po po round here want to give us a heads up on what is, and is not "necessary" in this context?

[SMOKEU]

It's the same as being stung for a noisy exhaust or sustained loss of traction. The cop doesn't need any proof, so it's just their word against yours.

[Winston001]

But the bulk of the penalty is applied BEFORE guilt is proven.

Therefore if the Popo alleges it happened, then you wear the penalty.

Subsequently proving you didn't do it will be of little value.

Not so. Being convicted of the offence is the principle penalty. Following that there is the fine/imprisonment and disqualification.

If you successfully defend the charge = not guilty, you have no conviction, no fine etc. Your vehicle will have been returned to you already (after 28 days) and you will not have to pay the storage charges.

[davereid]

Not so. Being convicted of the offence is the principle penalty.

You may see it that way. But I think losing your vehicle for 28 days is a massive penalty.

Maybe 2000km from home as well.

And the chance of defending a charge that needs no evidence and is based on opinion is small.

[nodrog:Me]

Not so. Being convicted of the offence is the principle penalty. Following that there is the fine/imprisonment and disqualification.

If you successfully defend the charge = not guilty, you have no conviction, no fine etc. Your vehicle will have been returned to you already (after 28 days) and you will not have to pay the storage charges.

So how do you get a rebate for the 28 days loss of licence that has been imposed on yourself for not being guilty?

[Winston001]

Its unclear in this thread but probably the big issue is a police officer's ability to impound a vehicle immediately for 28 days. However there are levels of appeal by the vehicle owner (eg. stolen etc)

"The owner of the vehicle can appeal to the Police against the impoundment on certain grounds. The grounds are that:

• The owner did not know or could not be expected to know that the operator of the vehicle would contravene the prohibition on racing, etc;
• The owner took all reasonable steps to prevent the operator of the vehicle from contravening the prohibition on racing, etc.
• The impounded vehicle was a stolen or converted vehicle at the time of the seizure and impoundment; or
• The enforcement officer who seized the vehicle did not have reasonable grounds to believe that the operator of the vehicle was contravening the prohibition on racing, etc; or did not comply with the prescribed notice requirements.

If the Police do not allow the appeal, the owner of the vehicle can appeal to the Court."

The law came into force in 2003 yet there don't seem to be any significant cases on it which suggests the police use their discretion appropriately most of the time.