'Boy Racer' laws and bikers?

[TonyB]

Anyone care to offer an opinion of the legal ramifications of the Boy Racer laws as they apply to bikers?
Some of you will know that a Chch boy racer is awaiting sentencing after racing a woman who went on to have a crash with another vehicle causing death and injury. He himself didn’t have an accident, but he did ‘flee the scene’. Not sure if this has any bearing on his current predicament ie: if he had stayed and offered assistance would he be in as much trouble? Here at work the feeling is that while he is in more hot water for fleeing the scene, he would still be looking at a jail term because he was involved in the race. Does anyone agree with this?

If that really is the case, it could prove awkward for us bikers. How many times have you been out on a ride and come up behind a car that then speeds up and tries to leave you behind? It’s happened to me two weekends in a row. What if the car crashed? If there were witnesses that said you were close behind the car and travelling at speed could you potentially be looking at a jail term? Then there’s rides like the ‘Akaroa GP’. If you were riding hard with some buddies and one of them crashed resulting in injury or death, could you also be in for a jail term? Imagine that, not only do you have to cope with the loss of a friend, you also are seen as causing his death in the eyes of the law. Great.

So what is the general consensus?

[bugjuice]

I think the term 'boy racer' is a generalisation, cos it's often them who's targeted as they have the biggest weapon, and often, the smallest brain (no offense).
In the same breath, if a biker, or anyone else not branded as a 'boy-racer' was to commit the same offense, I don't think there would be any difference in punishment or proceedure. What applies to one, will apply to all, regardless of what people call it.

If you do the crime, be prepared for the time. end of story imho

[MSTRS]

Dunno. Sounds ominous tho. Perhaps we need to get little stickers that read 'I'm not racing - this is normal speed for me'.

[bugjuice]

Dunno. Sounds ominous tho. Perhaps we need to get little stickers that read 'I'm not racing - this is normal speed for me'.
lmao.. I'll make some up now.. :yeah:

[**R1**]

lmao.. I'll make some up now.. :yeah:I'll take one:niceone:

So let me get this straight.....if im doing and Akoroa GP and some twat that cant ride crashes behind me after i have passed him, its my fault??:brick: so not only do i have to keep myself upright(not doing so well at this at the mo) but i have to make sure every other biker i ride with is in controll as well?? this is fucken CRAZY!! im not going to be held responsible for ever other wanker on the road....or have i got the wrong end of the stick?

[inlinefour]

I reckon it applies to all motor vehicle users alike. So think again if you are going to try doing that stupid behaviour.

[TonyB]

....or have i got the wrong end of the stick?
Dunno mate, that's what I'm trying to find out. The guys here at work seem to think thats exactly how it works ie: if you are 'racing' someone and they crash you are in deep shit.

[spudchucka]

[36A.Contravention of section 22A—

(1)A person commits an offence if the person—

(a)operates a motor vehicle in a race, or in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration, on a road in contravention of section 22A(1); or

(b)without reasonable excuse, intentionally pours onto, places on, or allows to spill onto a road

(i)any petrol, oil, or diesel fuel; or

(ii)any other substance likely to cause a vehicle to undergo loss of traction; or

(c)without reasonable excuse, operates a motor vehicle on a road in a manner that causes the vehicle to undergo sustained loss of traction in contravention of section 22A(3).

(2)A person commits an indictable offence if the person commits an offence against subsection (1)(a) or (c), and by that act or omission causes an injury to or the death of another person.

(3)A person who commits an offence against subsection (1)(a) or (c) that is an indictable offence is liable to the penalties set out in section 36(2), and section 36(2) and (3) apply as if the offence were an offence against section 36(1)(a) (such as operating a motor vehicle recklessly on a road, and by that act or omission causing an injury to or the death of another person).

(4)A person who commits an offence against subsection (1)(a) or (c) that is not an indictable offence is liable to the penalties set out in section 35(2), and section 35(2) and (3) apply as if the offence were an offence against section 35(1)(a) (operating a motor vehicle recklessly on a road).

(5)A person who commits an offence against subsection (1)(b) is liable to a fine not exceeding $3,000.]



36.Contravention of section 7 or section 22 involving injury or death—

(1)A person commits an indictable offence if the person—

(a)Commits an offence against paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of section 35(1) and by that act or omission causes an injury to or the death of another person; or

(b)Without reasonable excuse, contravenes section 22 by failing to stop and ascertain whether any person has been injured, and render assistance, after an accident where a person has been injured or killed.

(2)If a person is convicted of an offence against subsection (1),—

(a)The maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine not exceeding $20,000; and

(b)The court must order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 1 year or more.

(3)The imposition of a mandatory disqualification under this section is subject to section 81.

Spells it out pretty clear.

[TonyB]

Cheers Spudchuka. Well, it looks like the next time I catch up to a car that then decides to take me on, the safest option is to stop for a while. Really handy if you're just minding your own business and have somewhere to be.

[**R1**]

Spells it out pretty clear.

Not so clear to me(but i aint too bright)

so for example
You are riding around the hills(speeding), you pass a guy on another bike, he thinks you are racing and tries to catch back up to you and crashes and dies........if you stop to help him you get a $3000 fine?

if i dont stop but get caught later you go to jail and could be fined $20,000?

or you dont stop dont get caught and no1 is any the wiser.

[onearmedbandit]

Aaron, I know what you did last summer...

[**R1**]

Aaron, I know what you did last summer...and we all know what i did last Friday:doh:

ps: sssssshhhhhhhh its ment 2b a secret:cool:

[Waylander]

Maybe I should try to find the guy that ran me off the road and apply this to him? Nah, can't be botherd.:apint:

[madboy]

I can't fault the legal argument - the law is pretty clear on it.

But all it says to me is don't run a numberplate, and get the f*** outta dodge the moment something happens.

[Ixion]

Not so clear to me(but i aint too bright)

so for example
You are riding around the hills(speeding), you pass a guy on another bike, he thinks you are racing and tries to catch back up to you and crashes and dies........if you stop to help him you get a $3000 fine?

if i dont stop but get caught later you go to jail and could be fined $20,000?

or you dont stop dont get caught and no1 is any the wiser.

Not so clear to me(but i aint too bright)

so for example
You are riding around the hills(speeding), you pass a guy on another bike, he thinks you are racing and tries to catch back up to you and crashes and dies........if you stop to help him you get a $3000 fine?

if i dont stop but get caught later you go to jail and could be fined $20,000?

or you dont stop dont get caught and no1 is any the wiser.

That's not how I'd read it.

I think the $3000 fine bit only applies to putting diesel etc on the road.

The bad boy bits are "operates a .. vehicle in a race.. or .. unnecessary exhibition of speed.." and "..Operates a vehicle .. sustained loss of traction"

So, my take is (ignoring the pouring diesel on the road, cos no biker would be thatstupid):

1. The crown has to show that you were operating a vehicle in a race. Which is a question of fact in each case. I think that a judge or jury would be able to distinguish between a group of people out together for a ride, and a race (Simple test - is anyone interested in who gets there first ?). And if someone tries to "take you on", and you continue at the same speed and manner as you were before, it can hardly be a race. OTOH if someone passes you and you then try to catch him/ get past him, (going faster, harder than you were before), then it could be said that you were racing even though he wasn't. So in the example you give, you pass a guy, he tries to catch you, crashes etc. The Crown could have to show that you were trying to stop him catching you , eg riding faster or harder than you were before; or that there was some preunderstanding that implied competition. (eg, they had a witness who heard you say to the other guy, beforehand " I bet you could never catch me on the xxx road" )

2. The "exhibition of speed or acceleration" is a bit trickier. But I would think that a key word is "exhibition" - the Crown would need to show that you were "showing off" . It doesn't just say "anyone who accelerates excessively" Once again, a question of fact in each case. Which would imply that you can acelerate as hard as you like, so long as it does not risk loss of control, and so long as there is no "audience". Though I've heard of HP applying this bit to cover any "I don't like the way you were riding, but I can't pin anything specific on you" cases

3. If you *are* racing or dragging ("exhibition of speed etc" and someone is injured or killed then you *must* stop and render assistance (which I assume any sane person would do anyway) . Unless there is reasonable excuse - I'd assume that would be if you yourself were injured, or if there were already lots of people assisting.(Bearing in mind that you could still presumably be done for leaving the scene of an accident) And you get done on an indictable charge (bad, very bad) of dangerous driving causing death or some such.

4. If you *are* racing or dragging, and get caught, but nobody crashes, then you get done as if for reckless driving ("section 35(2), and section 35(2) and (3) apply as if the offence were an offence against section 35(1)(a) (operating a motor vehicle recklessly on a road).")

Simple solution seems to be not to race on the road. If you carry on at your own pace, and let others carry on at theirs, there is no issue.

The sustained loss of traction bit could presumably include wheelies and stoppies (locking a wheel under braking or lifting it off the deck is also loss of traction), but the Police already have a remedy for those, since they are considered dangerous driving. And it does have to be "sustained"

In all the above IANAL ("I Am Not A Lawyer"). Given that these are quite serious charges I would imagine that anyone charged with them would be getting a lawyer.

Overall I think it's a bad law, brought in on an emotive wave of public objection to a valid problem.

[jrandom]

Overall I think it's a bad law, brought in on an emotive wave of public objection to a valid problem.

I agree.

There should be a single "driving or riding like a wanker" offence, with a lot of space and generality in the description of it to allow cops to use it on anyone that annoys them.

Then all we have to do is ensure that all the traffic cops are intelligent, fair and scrupulously honest.

[TonyB]

There are two main problems I have with this law. Say you’re riding or driving on one of NZ’s many sinuous roads- the type where the corners are tight enough that you can ‘go quickly’ without exceeding the speed limit. You come up behind a young boy racer in his lowered Corolla SR 2 door thing, in the passenger seat is his girlfriend. Master boy racer say’s “This guy wants 2 race, I’m gonna blow him in2 the weeds with muh phat ride!” and proceeds to drive as hard as the limitations of his car and abilities allow. HE thinks you’re racing him, his girlfreind thinks you’re racing him (it certainly feels very fast and scary to her), but in reality they’ve actually slowed you down and are just generally getting in the way.
Then they crash.
The driver is killed, but the girlfriend is OK. You stop to help etc and do everything you should do.
The girlfriend tells the police that you were racing them…what’s going to happen?
The two main problems I have with this are:
1) this law seems to imply that you can influence and are therefore responsible for the actions of the driver of the car, despite the fact that you have not spoken to him, made eye contact with him or communicated with him in any way whatsoever.
2) It is down to the perception of the witness as to wether you were racing or not. ‘Fast’ in a ‘sports’ car is very different to ‘fast’ on a sports bike, particularly if there are hills involved

[**R1**]

In a lot more words u said what i was thinking.....dicks in cars(and bikes) can fully think ya wana race or that you are racing, when in fact you just want their sorry arse outa the way, so ya can carry on enjoying tha ride.

[spudchucka]

Though I've heard of HP applying this bit to cover any "I don't like the way you were riding, but I can't pin anything specific on you" casesIt wouldn't stand up too well in Court, I think this is very unlikely.


The sustained loss of traction bit could presumably include wheelies and stoppies (locking a wheel under braking or lifting it off the deck is also loss of traction), but the Police already have a remedy for those, since they are considered dangerous driving. And it does have to be "sustained"
The sustained loss of traction offences were drafted specifically with burnouts & doughnuts in mind. Wheelies and stoppies are not what the legislation was intended for. These would be dealt with by way of a careless or dangerous charge depending on the circumstances.


Overall I think it's a bad law, brought in on an emotive wave of public objection to a valid problem.The only bit that I think is really a horses arse is the unnecessary / excessive display of speed or acceleration part of the law. Its too subjective and needs to be more accurately defined.

It was as you say "brought in on an emotive wave of public objection to a valid problem". But so are many new laws, they get rushed through parliament, the pollies do a half arsed job and then pat themselves on the back for being such clever bastards while the rest of us have to try and make the laws work.

[madboy]

Then all we have to do is ensure that all the traffic cops are intelligent, fair and scrupulously honest.Yep... and I can see the pink porky animals flying past my window just now.

I was in court years ago being charged with dangerous driving because when the police car behind me pulled me over I stopped quicker that he did, and they searched the history of my car (a rally car) and "Did you know that your turbo-charged vehicle used to have the numberplate "RACE1"?" Like WTF does that have to do with dangerous driving? But the point I make is that it's all about perception, and has been said here, fast and excessive in my books probably differs a lot from a judge/jury.

If my bike does, say, 0-100 in 3 sec, then a moderate take off for me could see that done in say 6. Well that's quicker than an HP car giving it death. Does that mean it's excessive? Well if said HP's wife is bonking his former best mate, his teenage daughter's pregnant and his uninsured son's just written off the family car - you can bet your ass it's excessive. On the other hand, if he's intelligent, fair and scrupulously honest then it's not.

You tell me :)

[spudchucka]

There are two main problems I have with this law. Say you’re riding or driving on one of NZ’s many sinuous roads- the type where the corners are tight enough that you can ‘go quickly’ without exceeding the speed limit. You come up behind a young boy racer in his lowered Corolla SR 2 door thing, in the passenger seat is his girlfriend. Master boy racer say’s “This guy wants 2 race, I’m gonna blow him in2 the weeds with muh phat ride!” and proceeds to drive as hard as the limitations of his car and abilities allow. HE thinks you’re racing him, his girlfreind thinks you’re racing him (it certainly feels very fast and scary to her), but in reality they’ve actually slowed you down and are just generally getting in the way.
Then they crash.
The driver is killed, but the girlfriend is OK. You stop to help etc and do everything you should do.
The girlfriend tells the police that you were racing them…what’s going to happen?
The two main problems I have with this are:
1) this law seems to imply that you can influence and are therefore responsible for the actions of the driver of the car, despite the fact that you have not spoken to him, made eye contact with him or communicated with him in any way whatsoever.
2) It is down to the perception of the witness as to wether you were racing or not. ‘Fast’ in a ‘sports’ car is very different to ‘fast’ on a sports bike, particularly if there are hills involved
The laws were intended for the sort of urban illegal race and burnout events that are common on any Friday & Saturday night. The situation you describe would be stretching what parliament intended when drafting the law.

[MSTRS]

the pollies do a half arsed job and then pat themselves on the back for being such clever bastards while the rest of us have to try and make the laws work.
Too true.....any way a law is worded will leave loopholes, and the deliberate obtuseness of some leaves even more to be desired. Governments get it wrong more than we do??

[TonyB]

The laws were intended for the sort of urban illegal race and burnout events that are common on any Friday & Saturday night. The situation you describe would be stretching what parliament intended when drafting the law.
That's nice to know. But if one of Master Boyracers relatives happens to be a shit hot lawyer, or mum and dad can afford one, you could be in trouble, right?
Parliment never intended the words "in the spirit of the Treaty of Waitangi" to open a huge can of worms, but it happened anyway.

[Silage]

Some weeks ago OneArmedBandito related being pulled up in Chch by a bikie cop for lifting the front wheel a little on take off.

If you are reading this OAB I have been wondering, was it this new law that they were throwing at you or the old "dangerous driving" bit. Also, is there any progress on your case (just out of interest)?

[spudchucka]

If it was under the boy racer law then it was to do with the acceleration aspect of the incident. The front wheel leaving the ground alone does not fit the legislation.

[ghost]

The laws were intended for the sort of urban illegal race and burnout events that are common on any Friday & Saturday night. The situation you describe would be stretching what parliament intended when drafting the law.

My opinion is this is where bad laws originate from, "intent" is to open to interpretation and application, in my simple little world all laws would be clear and consise, you wouldnt need umpteen dollar lawyers to "interpret" these for me if you found yourself on the wrong side. But thats only in my world (it gets dark and lonely in here sometimes)(who said that?)

Good straight forward, easy to understand laws, would make everyones life/job easier. I would even write my own ticket if i got caught Spud.

[Krusti]

Ban traffic lights! They only incite drag racing. All intersections should have scantily clad babes with stop go flags. At least then we will not be in a hurry to move on. :yeah: :2thumbsup

[Lou Girardin]

Despite what our esteemed resident Pleece man says, the law is loose enough for a cop to nail you if you didn't pass the attitude test. The same test he has admitted using.
Nearly any normal take-off by a bike is excessive by car standards and as for the 'racing clause', has anyone considered the case of a group ride. If the group is checked at 120 km/h, is that racing?
I would prefer to not rely on some cops goodwill.

[Mongoose]

Despite what our esteemed resident Pleece man says, the law is loose enough for a cop to nail you if you didn't pass the attitude test. The same test he has admitted using.
Nearly any normal take-off by a bike is excessive by car standards and as for the 'racing clause', has anyone considered the case of a group ride. If the group is checked at 120 km/h, is that racing?
I would prefer to not rely on some cops goodwill.

Much the same as under the old Traffic Snake days. Mind you, there was not a lot of goodwill in those days either, but enough curly laws that made a ticket avaliable for every stop should said snake want to do it

[Ixion]

Much the same as under the old Traffic Snake days. Mind you, there was not a lot of goodwill in those days either, but enough curly laws that made a ticket avaliable for every stop should said snake want to do it
No man ever lacked for a stick wherewith to beat a dog.

But the old MoT bike cops were pretty reasonable IME. Worst I ever got was a stiff warning.(And that was the guy who followed me up the Northern Motorway as I tried to push the Speed Twin over 90mph. I didn't see him because I had my head inside the petrol tank, as one does). I think it probably helped that (I think - open to correction) all the MoT guys had to qualify on bikes. So at least they'd done some time on a bike. Whereas now a lot of the HP have never ridden a bike, don't want to, and have the the standard "Dangerous things, should be banned" stereotype attitude toward them (Obviously, not all HP !. The bike HP cops must be keen bikers, I assume that they volunteer for the bike duty) .

Auckland City Council cops weren't too bad either, the ones that could be *real* pricks were the ones on the little councils. Back then councils could elect to run there own traffic department. They got to keep the fines, and it was a good money maker for some of the small councils. Usually they only had one cop, and if you were an out of towner you were fair game. Some of the towns on the roads back from the ski fields were notorious. Otahuhu Borough Council was bad too, unless you belonged to the local Rugby Club !.

[flyin]

Ban traffic lights! They only incite drag racing. All intersections should have scantily clad babes with stop go flags. At least then we will not be in a hurry to move on. :yeah: :2thumbsup



Absolutly!!
in the UK the traffic lights go back to orange before green!! cool a!! would be great for racing (designed so pedestrians can still go on orange you have to give way if they are there or sumthin......) pity everyone goes as soon as the lights flash orange.....

[Wolf]

Wheelies and stoppies are not what the legislation was intended for. These would be dealt with by way of a careless or dangerous charge depending on the circumstances.
But is not learning how to do stoppies part and parcel with learning proper control of the bike? If you know how to do stoppies you're probably skilled enough not to get into too many braking difficulties and probably less likely to panic and FUBT (F*** Up, Big Time) if you do. How can practising stoppies be deemed dangerous or careless? That'd be like outlawing skid-control lessons.

the pollies do a half arsed job and then pat themselves on the back for being such clever bastards
Please remember: "Politics" comes from two words - "Poly" meaning "many" and "Ticks" - small blood-sucking insects.

[Ixion]

But is not learning how to do stoppies part and parcel with learning proper control of the bike? .. How can practising stoppies be deemed dangerous or careless? That'd be like outlawing skid-control lessons.

.

Well, perhaps not on the public road ? Skid control lessons are usually on private property .

[Wolf]

Well, perhaps not on the public road ? Skid control lessons are usually on private property .
Awww, go on, ruin all our fun!

[Drunken Monkey]

It wouldn't stand up too well in Court, I think this is very unlikely.

That's true, but some officers still try it on as a form of intimidation to people they figure either can't afford to fight the ticket/charge in court, don't know they could/should fight it, or honestly thought because the officer told them off, they _must_ have been in the wrong.
Victorian police used to issue the tickets anyway, if there was any doubt, as standard procedure. They used to drop the charges pretty quickly if you challenged it in court, but a lot of people didn't try/know they should have challenged. Not sure if this is still SOP, this was over 15 years ago...

The other dirty tactic my old man said they used as 'standard procedure' was to call people in for an interview and get a statement from them, with the specific intent to use the interviewee's own statement against them (the statement being the only evidence they'll get). A lot people don't realise you can:
(a) avoid the inconvenience of going to the station to make a statement by insisting the officer(s) come and visit you, at a time that suits you.
(b) outright refuse to make any statements at all until they arrest you. With the work involved in arresting someone just for a sniff they may incriminate themselves in their statement, nothing will usually eventuate.
I am talking pretty minor things here though, typically traffic/vehicle offenses, rather than violent criminal activities (although I imagine the principle is the same - e.g. get a robbery suspect in for a statement with little more than a 'hunch' and see if he screws up his alibi?)

[Drunken Monkey]

But is not learning how to do stoppies part and parcel with learning proper control of the bike? If you know how to do stoppies you're probably skilled enough not to get into too many braking difficulties and probably less likely to panic and FUBT (F*** Up, Big Time) if you do. How can practising stoppies be deemed dangerous or careless? That'd be like outlawing skid-control lessons.


Probably more of an issue that you're doing it on a public road. That's what closed circuits are used for, ie the Ford or BMW advanced driver training days usually hire out Pukekohe so people can emergency brake to their heart's content. I beleive it is illegal to 'test' your emergency braking on a public road. "No traffic around" is probably never a valid excuse for anything, as there was obviously at least 1 other vehicle (i.e. the police car) on the road there to nab ya.
Also, the LTNZ beleives skilled drivers are over confident, and no more likely to avoid an accident than a regular incompetant...

[edit]
ugh, that was a waste of disk space. Sorry guys, didn't see someone had already said this...

[spudchucka]

The other dirty tactic my old man said they used as 'standard procedure' was to call people in for an interview and get a statement from them, with the specific intent to use the interviewee's own statement against them (the statement being the only evidence they'll get). A lot people don't realise you can:
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Have a read of it.

[Drunken Monkey]

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Have a read of it.

Look, I'm not trying to be a smart-arse here. Whether you think it's legal/illegal, moral/immoral, doesn't detract from the reality that it can and does happen form time to time. What is your point? I'm guessing you're reffering to something in Chapter 4? Are you saying everyone knows and understands their rights and obligations under this section of the Bill, therefore my statement was false - that it does not, and never has happened?

[onearmedbandit]

Some weeks ago OneArmedBandito related being pulled up in Chch by a bikie cop for lifting the front wheel a little on take off.

If you are reading this OAB I have been wondering, was it this new law that they were throwing at you or the old "dangerous driving" bit. Also, is there any progress on your case (just out of interest)?

Careless use was the charge. Received the notice in the mail a couple of days later, still waiting for the summons. 2 good cops out of 3, my luck the asshole cop was most the most senior. The guy didn't say a word to me once, just stared at me. Looked like a right c#*t. :Oi: :tugger:

[TonyB]

The only bit that I think is really a horses arse is the unnecessary / excessive display of speed or acceleration part of the law. Its too subjective and needs to be more accurately defined.
Have to agree with that. Imagine this: your sitting at the lights on your GSXR1000 or whatever. It can do 0-100 in 3 secs easily. Next to you is a bloke in a Commodore SS (they seem to love trying to take bikes on). The lights turn green, you accelerate to the speed limit sedately for your bike- say enough to to 0-100 in 6 secs. The bloke in the SS thinks your trying to drag him off and floors it. He roars past you (you stopped accelerating once the speed limit was reached, whatever it may be) and slams into a car that is pulling out onto the road causing an accident resulting in injury or death. The SS driver thinks you were racing him, other witnesses saw you initially accelerate away from what they know is a fast car, so THEY think you were racing.
Are you in trouble?

[peterjdaly]

Careless use was the charge. Received the notice in the mail a couple of days later, still waiting for the summons. 2 good cops out of 3, my luck the asshole cop was most the most senior. The guy didn't say a word to me once, just stared at me. Looked like a right c#*t. :Oi: :tugger:


Had to laugh when I read this one. I was one of the apparently decent two. The senior one is my boss, and actually he isn't a bad bloke. I was keen to see you get an instant fine, but the boss insisted on the Careless. To be honest, it did look a little excessive. Cool, but excessive.

Bottom line is, if you are struggling to keep the wheels of your bike on the road, you're probably doing something wrong.

I'm pleased to say the before too long there just might be two ST1100-Ps riding the mean streets of ChCh, looking for you...........tee hee :niceone:

The wheelie you did would have looked more like an accident if you hadn't leaned forward over the tank before you wound the throttle open. I was gobsmacked when I saw the controls on your bike. COOL !!

[spudchucka]

Look, I'm not trying to be a smart-arse here. Whether you think it's legal/illegal, moral/immoral, doesn't detract from the reality that it can and does happen form time to time. What is your point? I'm guessing you're reffering to something in Chapter 4? Are you saying everyone knows and understands their rights and obligations under this section of the Bill, therefore my statement was false - that it does not, and never has happened?
I'm not suggesting that there has never been any dodgy statements taken. But the bill of rights act has changed the way police deal with people. As soon as a cop forms good cause to suspect that an offence has been committed they have to caution the person by saying that they are not obliged to say anything and that anything they do say can be given in evidence.

Any statements gained from a person that has not been properly cautioned and advised of the rights pursuant to the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 will not be allowed as evidence in Court. Therefore, (scoff if you want to but its true), it is not worth taking a statement from an offender unless you have followed the proper due process.

Any hint of a statement obtained contrary to these rights will result in the evidence being struck out. The cop involved will simply look like a dishonest twat to the Court and it isn't worth having that happen.

Cops know this and learn very quickly that it isn't worth while cutting corners and doing things half arsed if you intend taking somebody to Court.

Why do you think that video interviews are the norm these days? Because the process is then totally transparent to the Court and it cannot be refuted.

When video interviews were first introduced lawyers were quick to tell their clients to go on video because they believed that they would catch the cops out and get a lot of people off. That didn't happen, in fact quite the opposite happened. They saw that they could no longer stand up and make a BS suggestion that the cop ignored due process and infringed their clients rights by not cautioning them before making a statement. Now its just a matter of playing a video to the Court and everyone can see whether or not the statement was obtained legitimately.

I don't know how long ago your old man was a cop or traffic officer but a hell of a lot has changed over the last 10 or 15 years.

[Wolf]

... lawyers were quick to tell their clients to go on video because they believed that they would catch the cops out and get a lot of people off. That didn't happen, in fact quite the opposite happened. They saw that they could no longer stand up and make a BS suggestion that the cop ignored due process and infringed their clients rights by not cautioning them before making a statement.
Ha ha! Love it when lawyers open fire on their own foot with both barrels. :ar15:

[Wolf]

Had to laugh when I read this one. I was one of the apparently decent two. The senior one is my boss, ...
Oh Gods, another one. Moderator, delete all my previous posts about speeding until I can buy this guy off, please.

Heh. Small world, eh, OneArmedBandit?

[spudchucka]

Have to agree with that. Imagine this: your sitting at the lights on your GSXR1000 or whatever. It can do 0-100 in 3 secs easily. Next to you is a bloke in a Commodore SS (they seem to love trying to take bikes on). The lights turn green, you accelerate to the speed limit sedately for your bike- say enough to to 0-100 in 6 secs. The bloke in the SS thinks your trying to drag him off and floors it. He roars past you (you stopped accelerating once the speed limit was reached, whatever it may be) and slams into a car that is pulling out onto the road causing an accident resulting in injury or death. The SS driver thinks you were racing him, other witnesses saw you initially accelerate away from what they know is a fast car, so THEY think you were racing.
Are you in trouble?
Thats pretty subjective, if you never exceeded the speed limit its a bit rich to say you were "racing". If you did as you say accelerate to the speed limit quickly for a period of only 6 seconds I don't think you could conclude that you were racing.

[Funkyfly]

Bottom line is, if you are struggling to keep the wheels of your bike on the road, you're probably doing something wrong.


Ive never understood this "wheelies are dangerous" mentality, whats wrong with coming out of a 50kph into a 100kph and the front wheel lifting?

Its like doing skids in cars are classed as loss of control, yea right, whateva, maybe for nancy cop car drivers it is, but for good drivers you can have total control of a skid. And its not hard to tell a controlled skid from some ning nong whos lost it.

Hey copper, how are cops trained to control a car in a high speed chase? are you taught how to control a skid or slide, because this is part of any decent driver training program. The amount of cops crashing is criminal.

[spudchucka]

Hey copper, how are cops trained to control a car in a high speed chase? are you taught how to control a skid or slide, because this is part of any decent driver training program. The amount of cops crashing is criminal.
Yes, they are taught to control a skid. However they don't go around on public roads doing it for fun.

The rest of your post isn't worth responding to.

[Funkyfly]

Thats pretty subjective, if you never exceeded the speed limit its a bit rich to say you were "racing". If you did as you say accelerate to the speed limit quickly for a period of only 6 seconds I don't think you could conclude that you were racing.

Man i wish more cops had your attitude.

[Wolf]

Thats pretty subjective, if you never exceeded the speed limit its a bit rich to say you were "racing". If you did as you say accelerate to the speed limit quickly for a period of only 6 seconds I don't think you could conclude that you were racing.
Someone, can't recall who, once told me that we were supposed to only accelerate at "a reasonable rate" - in response to my habit on the old TS125 of getting up to 50km/h as fast as I possibly could (generally a lot quicker than the car beside me).

You're saying that as long as there's nothing to impede our passage we can take off like SCUD missiles so long as we level off at the legal limit?

[Funkyfly]

Yes, they are taught to control a skid. However they don't go around on public roads doing it for fun.

The rest of your post isn't worth responding to.

if you honestly think every wheelie is some kind of loss of control or reckless action then i take back my compliment and im not interesed in hearing your response.

But thanks, you heard it here folks, skids can indeed be controlled. Kind flys in the face of ticketing (loss of control) someone for a controlled skid.

Im not talking crazy ass antics, more chirping the tyres style, seems a bit pedantic.

[spudchucka]

You're saying that as long as there's nothing to impede our passage we can take off like SCUD missiles so long as we level off at the legal limit?
Do you work for TV3? Maybe you should apply for a job after this great example of journalist improvisation.

I said it would be hard to prove that the circumstances described would constitute a race. That does not say that there are no other offences that may be applicable, just that it was not, in the circumstances, "a race".

[outlawtorn]

if you honestly think every wheelie is some kind of loss of control or reckless action then i take back my compliment and im not interesed in hearing your response.

But thanks, you heard it here folks, skids can indeed be controlled. Kind flys in the face of ticketing (loss of control) someone for a controlled skid.

Im not talking crazy ass antics, more chirping the tyres style, seems a bit pedantic.

You see, he has woken up on the wrong side of the bed today!

[Funkyfly]

Do you work for TV3? Maybe you should apply for a job after this great example of journalist improvisation.

I said it would be hard to prove that the circumstances described would constitute a race. That does not say that there are no other offences that may be applicable, just that it was not, in the circumstances, "a race".

LOL, points for trying Wolf, You could get done under the new acceleration law.

[spudchucka]

if you honestly think every wheelie is some kind of loss of control or reckless action then i take back my compliment and im not interesed in hearing your response.

But thanks, you heard it here folks, skids can indeed be controlled. Kind flys in the face of ticketing (loss of control) someone for a controlled skid.

Im not talking crazy ass antics, more chirping the tyres style, seems a bit pedantic.
Little peelies away from the lights aren't loss of traction as defined under the Act. Drifting, burnouts & doughnuts on public roads are. There is no need for people to drive like this on public roads and regardless of how flash they might think they are they cannot have 100% control of a vehicle while its driving wheels are losing traction.

Come to Manfield and watch the drifters at an open day, even the really good guys lose control. And thats in a controlled environment, not a public road.

[Funkyfly]

You see, he has woken up on the wrong side of the bed today!

This is the 2nd time you have posted this today, now your even crossing threads.

Once is funny, but now its old, If you havent got anything better to contribute go back to SA, and take your scooter with you.

[outlawtorn]

This is the 2nd time you have posted this today, now your even crossing threads.

Once is funny, but now its old, If you havent got anything better to contribute go back to SA, and take your scooter with you.

hahahaha :Playnice:

[Funkyfly]

Little peelies away from the lights aren't loss of traction as defined under the Act. Drifting, burnouts & doughnuts on public roads are. There is no need for people to drive like this on public roads and regardless of how flash they might think they are they cannot have 100% control of a vehicle while its driving wheels are losing traction.

Come to Manfield and watch the drifters at an open day, even the really good guys lose control. And thats in a controlled environment, not a public road.

Seen the drifting, seen the carnage.

Like i think i mentioned im not referring to this kind of activity, rather the old school hotrod type skid from the lights, the ole chirp, and maybe a little sideways outta the drive.

I do like the "sustained loss of traction" statement in this new laws, that helps seperate the ning nongs, but from experience ANY wheel spin no matter how little seems to invoke the old "you reckless bastard, here comes the book" attitude in cops.

[spudchucka]

Like i think i mentioned im not referring to this kind of activity, rather the old school hotrod type skid from the lights, the ole chirp, and maybe a little sideways outta the drive.
For it to fit the boy racer laws the loss of traction has to be "sustained". Slight wheel spin and sideways drifting could still be prosecuted as careless driving though.

[TonyB]

Thats pretty subjective, if you never exceeded the speed limit its a bit rich to say you were "racing". If you did as you say accelerate to the speed limit quickly for a period of only 6 seconds I don't think you could conclude that you were racing.
My point is that in my little scenario, the biker is just riding normally, but due to the significant power to weight ratio advantage of the bike he acclerates away, the driver of the SS thinks a race is on, witnesses think a race is on. The SS crashes, people are injured, the police are called. It goes to court, and the witnesses swear under oath that the biker was racing. Surely the biker is going to have a hard time convincing the jury or judge that he was in fact riding sedately?

[spudchucka]

It probably wouldn't be hard to convince the Court that if you were indeed racing your R1 then the SS would have been left for dead at the start line.

Personally I can't see the situation you described happening. Thats just my personal view of it.

[TonyB]

I hope your right spudchuka
I used to work with a woman who's husband was done for slamming into the back of a vehicle on the motorway. According to their side of the story the car was driving slowly up an on-ramp, they were going to get past with ample time to spare, but the car cut across the hatched lines as soon as it was possible to do so, and still travelling at low speed. He had no chance of stopping, but he was done for causing the accident as he had hit a moving vehicle from behind. End of story as far as the law was concerned.

[MSTRS]

It probably wouldn't be hard to convince the Court that if you were indeed racing your R1 then the SS would have been left for dead at the start line.

Personally I can't see the situation you described happening. Thats just my personal view of it.
I think his point is that this scenario could be one of those 'grey areas' and that some cop with gallbladder troubles *could* ping him.

[TonyB]

I think his point is that this scenario could be one of those 'grey areas' and that some cop with gallbladder troubles *could* ping him.
Something like that, yeh. If the biker wasn't a fine upstanding citizen with a good record and a good lawyer I could see this going badly. Paranoia? Probably :spudwhat:

[spudchucka]

I think his point is that this scenario could be one of those 'grey areas' and that some cop with gallbladder troubles *could* ping him.
Still got to get it through Court though. I reckon it would be pulled if the "offender" decided to defend the charge, (in the circumstances described).

[MSTRS]

Still got to get it through Court though. I reckon it would be pulled if the "offender" decided to defend the charge, (in the circumstances described).
I would hope so. But, if said 'offender' felt he/she could not afford to defend the charge, then they'd be gone.

[TonyB]

Still got to get it through Court though. I reckon it would be pulled if the "offender" decided to defend the charge, (in the circumstances described).
Can you imagine the prosecutions reaction to the biker saying "I was going slowly- my bike can do 0-100 in under 3 seconds"
"Mr x, a Commodore SS is regarded as a 'fast car' is it not?"
"Umm. yes"
"Much faster than a normal family car?"
"yes"
"And it takes around 6 seconds to reach 100 kph from a standing start"
"About that, yes"
"So a fast car will do 0-100 in 6 seconds, yet your motorbike will do it in under 3?"
"Yes"
"Tell me, Mr x, why do you need to own a road going vehicle with such massive preformance? I have some information here that states that there are NO production cars that can match this. Why do you need so much performance?"
"Ummmmm"

Actually, how the hell WOULD you justify it?

[Wolf]

"Tell me, Mr x, why do you need to own a road going vehicle with such massive preformance? I have some information here that states that there are NO production cars that can match this. Why do you need so much performance?"
"Ummmmm"

Actually, how the hell WOULD you justify it?
"So I can get out of the way of fuck-headed boi racers trying to do "0-100 in 6 seconds" right up my arse, your Shysterness."

[scumdog]

Someone, can't recall who, once told me that we were supposed to only accelerate at "a reasonable rate" - in response to my habit on the old TS125 of getting up to 50km/h as fast as I possibly could (generally a lot quicker than the car beside me).

You're saying that as long as there's nothing to impede our passage we can take off like SCUD missiles so long as we level off at the legal limit?


Of course you then have to look at "unneccessary display of acceleration" part of the B.R. Act.............

[Drunken Monkey]

...
Cops know this and learn very quickly that it isn't worth while cutting corners and doing things half arsed if you intend taking somebody to Court...


First up, thankyou for taking the time to clarify your post :)

I have no doubt the process works out when they get to court, however I was more pointing at the element of "let's try this and if the defendant queries or takes it to court, just drop the charges so it never makes it to court", i.e. no real intent on taking it to court in the first place.


...
I don't know how long ago your old man was a cop or traffic officer but a hell of a lot has changed over the last 10 or 15 years.

T'was a lot longer ago than that. He was sent to HK in the 70's as part of the clean up of corruption in their police force.

However my most recent experience was a former colleague who's charges were dropped when his lawyer sent the usual letter to the police that the charges were going to be challenged. This was only last year. Perhaps I'm being unfair and the motivation was economic rather than intimdatory.

[Ixion]

For it to fit the boy racer laws the loss of traction has to be "sustained". Slight wheel spin and sideways drifting could still be prosecuted as careless driving though.

Hm. Front wheel drive cars, it is often hard to avoid some wheel spin when getting under way on a steep hill, especially in the wet. But as the boy racer law specifies an "exhibition" of loss of traction, presumably "I didn't mean to " would be a valid defence (assuming of course that the other evidence was in accordance). The requirement that it be "exhibited" (which implies an expectant audience, as is the case at these boy-racer things), and "sustained" would appear to rule out using that section to clobber someone who accidently provokes a bit of wheelspin getting under way.

Not to say that a cop whose is a bad mood might not use it as a convenient catch all to frighten someone with

[Gen]

Dunno mate, that's what I'm trying to find out. The guys here at work seem to think thats exactly how it works ie: if you are 'racing' someone and they crash you are in deep shit.

If you are racing them you are part of the problem.You could assume that if they were'nt racing, there would have been no accident...

[TonyB]

If you are racing them you are part of the problem.You could assume that if they were'nt racing, there would have been no accident...
You missed my point. Due to the huge difference in preformance between a car and a sports bike, it is possible to be riding at a normal pace and be held up by a car that is 'racing' you. As I said, this has happened to me two weekends in a row. It's quite likely that the drivers of these cars would genuinely believe that I was racing them, when in reality they were slowing me down from my normal pace (hills were involved, so while the car is labouring up the hill, the bike has no such problem).

[Wolf]

You missed my point. Due to the huge difference in preformance between a car and a sports bike, it is possible to be riding at a normal pace and be held up by a car that is 'racing' you. As I said, this has happened to me two weekends in a row. It's quite likely that the drivers of these cars would genuinely believe that I was racing them, when in reality they were slowing me down from my normal pace (hills were involved, so while the car is labouring up the hill, the bike has no such problem).
Because tha sad-arsed little Mazdabators do not even consider that the Wanker Rotary engine is inferior in all ways to a decent motorcycle, the possibility that the bike is inherently faster than them doesn't cross what passes for their minds. If it's faster than them, the rider must be trying reeeeaaaaallllly hard because their Mazdas are da shitz, right? Nah, they're just shit.

Best thing you can do when they're holding you up is have your pillion break out the thermos and some sammies, or light a ciggy and settle back with the newspaper - to convey to the losers in the car that the current pace is not remotely like a race...(If you were a politician I'd suggest that you pull out the newspaper...)

[R6_kid]

spoke to the police one drunken night recently at the beach... asked what car was mine - pointed at the helmet in the backseat - im with that guy but i only ride bikes.

Then asked if the said "boy racer" rules apply to bikers. Reply was 'it applies to all vehicles and drivers'

does that mean that if my 90yr old gran in her 10tonne truck accelerates unnecisarily (sp) that she can be charged as a 'boy racer'? :wait:

[Lou Girardin]

spoke to the police one drunken night recently at the beach... asked what car was mine - pointed at the helmet in the backseat - im with that guy but i only ride bikes.

Then asked if the said "boy racer" rules apply to bikers. Reply was 'it applies to all vehicles and drivers'

does that mean that if my 90yr old gran in her 10tonne truck accelerates unnecisarily (sp) that she can be charged as a 'boy racer'? :wait:

Welcome to the world of indiscriminate, populist law-making.

[SARGE]

(a)operates a motor vehicle in a race, or in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration, on a road in contravention of section 22A(1); or

(b)without reasonable excuse, intentionally pours onto, places on, or allows to spill onto a road

(i)any petrol, oil, or diesel fuel; or

(ii)any other substance likely to cause a vehicle to undergo loss of traction; or

i cant tell you how many times i have seen these fuck-tard truckies dumping fuel going around a corner.. are yuou saying i can dob them in for it?

[Pancakes]

necessary acceleration, braking, cornering speed. IE, you didn't have to do it but it was fun and by no means thrashing your ride. I got done for disorderly behavior last year for bridge swinging off Greenhithe. The cop said it was basicly anything that was outside of normal behavior for the general public. The boring, oooh coro streets on where's my haemmorroid cream public. I'm hassled by the climbers and industrial riggers I do stuff with for being anal about the details and doing everything to extremes. Not disorderly at all. The cop said they were only teaching us a lesson cos we could have got hurt. I could have dropped the cop car off the bridge safely on the rig we had up (serious). People including cops do use their own, uninformed viewpoints as gospel when judging others behavior. Although constable potato you seem like an ok guy, if you have reports of people jumping off bridges it's a sport ok.

[Ixion]

i cant tell you how many times i have seen these fuck-tard truckies dumping fuel going around a corner.. are yuou saying i can dob them in for it?

Nope. " ..... intentionally ... ". Truckie will say (with truth) it's not intentional.