Cop radars?

[saltydog]

Anyone know how often these units need to be calibrated in order the reading be admissible in court?
And are they required to keep the valid calibration certificate in the vehicle incase a member of the public requests to see this certificate?
Has anyone got off a ticket because one of these 'certificates' was out-of-date?
Perhaps one of our coppers here on KB can shed some light?
I should have asked these questions of the copper that took my licence last week!!! (what a drama queen he was)

A devoit muslim never touches bacon.

[Max Preload]

Anyone know how often these units need to be calibrated in order the reading be admissible in court?

See here (http://tinyurl.com/ny5vn6).


And are they required to keep the valid calibration certificate in the vehicle incase a member of the public requests to see this certificate?

No.


Has anyone got off a ticket because one of these 'certificates' was out-of-date?

Yes.


Perhaps one of our coppers here on KB can shed some light?

Possibly.

[saltydog]

So it appears that these units must be tested every year?

1/ 'Any testing must not be more than 12 months before the date of the alleged offence'. or..... 'Any testing must not be more than 12 months before the date of the alleged offence'.

And they can just get the unit tested anyway (only within 14 days of a hearing)

2/ In any proceedings where a certificate has been produced under this section, the court may, set aside the certificate and require the accuracy of the equipment or device to be established by evidence other than the certificate.

So it would take an on-to-it alledged speeder to ask to see, or arrange to see a copy of this certificate in order to take the case further?

Can I still request a copy of this certificate? (got ticketed on the 11th)

And if was found to be out of date.......what would my next step be?
Or just do the time?

What would you do?

[CookMySock]

I did see a list of "essential actions" for when you are stopped for speeding. It was list of things to ask the officer, and details to record. I don't know where I saw this, but it was bloody interesting. Anyone?

Steve

[Max Preload]

I would ask for a copy.

[jetboy]

I had a cop write me a ticket because he 'estimated' my speed. When I questioned him I asked to see the radar reading which was, conveniently, at 121km/h. I know that I was going under 115km/h (cruise control was set to 109km/h) so it smelled fishy.

I wrote a letter to the complaints authority and just got the standard reply back "take us to court". I paid the fine because it was easier and cheaper than going to the courts.

Due to the high volume of complaints surronding speeding fines I would have thought there would be some other way to content the fine.

[CookMySock]

I had a cop write me a ticket because he 'estimated' my speed. When I questioned him I asked to see the radar reading which was, conveniently, at 121km/h. I know that I was going under 115km/h (cruise control was set to 109km/h) so it smelled fishy.

I wrote a letter to the complaints authority and just got the standard reply back "take us to court". I paid the fine because it was easier and cheaper than going to the courts.

Due to the high volume of complaints surronding speeding fines I would have thought there would be some other way to content the fine.This is exactly what happens when you play their game. Don't do it.

Wait for the computer printed notice and write in and make up a big bullshit story how you can prove you were under the speed limit (or tell the truth) and state that you and your expensive lawyers will see them in court, and watch THEM back down.

When you know you are right, tell them to get bent.

Steve

[jetboy]

This is exactly what happens when you play their game. Don't do it.

Wait for the computer printed notice and write in and make up a big bullshit story how you can prove you were under the speed limit (or tell the truth) and state that you and your expensive lawyers will see them in court, and watch THEM back down.

When you know you are right, tell them to get bent.

Steve
Unfortunately it costs alot to defend your innocence.

I am going through a situation with the police at the moment, where I am innocent (honestly) but defence costs (lawyer/court etc) actually outweigh the penalty... I'm not sure whether to plead guilty and get it over with or be out of pocket to defend my innocence.

It goes against my moral grain to 'admit' to something I didn't do, but if I can't really afford to defend it....what to do?!

p.s. sorry for thread hijack

[p.dath]

This is exactly what happens when you play their game. Don't do it.

Wait for the computer printed notice and write in and make up a big bullshit story how you can prove you were under the speed limit (or tell the truth) and state that you and your expensive lawyers will see them in court, and watch THEM back down.

When you know you are right, tell them to get bent.

Steve

You realise the "Crown" has no concern about the size or cost of your lawyers don't you? And you do realise you can't actually out spend the crown? After all, the crown is funded by taxation ...

[p.dath]

Unfortunately it costs alot to defend your innocence.

I am going through a situation with the police at the moment, where I am innocent (honestly) but defence costs (lawyer/court etc) actually outweigh the penalty... I'm not sure whether to plead guilty and get it over with or be out of pocket to defend my innocence.

It goes against my moral grain to 'admit' to something I didn't do, but if I can't really afford to defend it....what to do?!

p.s. sorry for thread hijack

When court is involved never try and take the line of defending what is correct. It will break you.

Always take the line of what will achieve the best outcome - no matter what the outcome is.

[idleidolidyll]

I did see a list of "essential actions" for when you are stopped for speeding. It was list of things to ask the officer, and details to record. I don't know where I saw this, but it was bloody interesting. Anyone?

Steve

I think you mean this thread. http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=84501

The cops, by the way, were VERY pissed off with the way it was going. Too close to the truth i reckon.
Know your rights and know what they can and can't do.

[saltydog]

That link is a good read, and recommended to all to have a look.
The 3 steps are at the bottom and outlined in RED.
Already commited to memory!

[ready4whatever]

build a bike that looks like a stealth jet (fairings dont bounce back signal, very very special coating that you'l need to buy off the u.s government)

[davereid]

The look-through error discussed in Idleys very useful link is particularly important for motorcyclists.

The key thing to remember is, the radar unit cannot identify the target vehicle.

If there are several vehicles in the beam, or potential beam area, there is no way the radar can say which one returned the processed signal.

The operator will, quite naturally assume that the closest vehicle, or the one he thought was speeding was the correct target.

The radar units give the operator a lot of confidence, its unsurprising that the cop genuinely believes you were speeding even if you were not.

[Renegade]

Unfortunately it costs alot to defend your innocence.

I am going through a situation with the police at the moment, where I am innocent (honestly) but defence costs (lawyer/court etc) actually outweigh the penalty... I'm not sure whether to plead guilty and get it over with or be out of pocket to defend my innocence.

It goes against my moral grain to 'admit' to something I didn't do, but if I can't really afford to defend it....what to do?!

p.s. sorry for thread hijack

i have often wondered if you were genuinley innocent and wrongly accused, whether you could then take the Police to small claims for the costs incurred by you because of them gettn it wrong??

As for the 3 questions, well they are pretty shit i reckon, how are you going to get off by asking those??

When ya nicked, ya nicked, we all know the rules :innocent:

id like to add that a ticket should only be issued if the identification of said speeder has ticked all three boxes, them being: 1)visual I.D of vehicle travelling faster than limit, 2)radar readout of speed, 3) solid doppler tone,if you aint got those ducks lined up its no good, so when you hear them say "i picked u up coming round the corner or over the crest" thats then time to plan your defence.

[jetboy]

My sister works for the police and apparently you can make a formal complaint against them if you believe you have been unfairly treated...may go down that path depending on how the next week pans out...

[davereid]

3) solid doppler tone

The "Stalker" and I understand other mobile units will gve a solid doppler tone to the operator, even if one does not exist !

In an "old" unit, the operator could hear the doppler beat tone, and could usually tell if there were mulitiple targets in the beam and thus discard the reading.

Cops became used to the tone, and didnt even need to look up from "Hustler" to know the speed of the car in the beam.

But when radar went mobile, this didn't work.

Not only was it hard to read Hustler while burning up petrol, the doppler tone was all over the place, as it depended on the difference between the police car and the target speed.

So a police car at 100, following a biker at 50, generated exactly the same doppler tone as a police car at 100 following a biker at 150 !

The radar manfacturer "solved" this by digitally processing the doppler tone, and then generating a new tone, based on the target vehicle speed after adjustment for patrol speed, and vehicle lane.

This of course means that "clear tone" just means the radar unit has guessed which of the returned signals you wish to hear, and deleted all the others.

[Little Smurf]

I would also recommend taking a picture on your phone of the speeds that they 'apparently' clock you at, this is good evidence if you ever go to court! We requested a copy of their maual for radars and it's very interesting reading. If we don't know the law they can and do get away with so much shit, intimadation is big and the court system is slow, I was pulled up in Dec 07 and through requests back and fourth of information our hearing didn't happen until 31 July 08, 8 months later!!!!! In that time I got off 2 infringements and the only reason I lost the speeding infringement was 'credibility' which was bullshit cause the cop contradicted himself repeatly. Fight it if you can it's worth it, If you know what to ask when you get pulled up all good keep a note book or pad in your tail bag write down as much information ask them questions turn it around and alwyas ask to see their last entry!!!

[davereid]

We requested a copy of their maual for radars and it's very interesting reading. If we don't know the law they can and do get away with so much shit, intimadation is big and the court system is slow, I was pulled up in Dec 07 and through requests back and fourth of information our hearing didn't happen until 31 July 08, 8 months later!!!!! Fight it if you can it's worth it, If you know what to ask when you get pulled up all good keep a note book or pad in your tail bag write down as much information ask them questions turn it around and alwyas ask to see their last entry!!!

I generally suggest that you take every ticket to court, and certainly its what I do.

The fact it took 8 months to get to court is great - the longer the better. Thats because the police force has massive churn, as much as 20% a year. So its entirely possible that the cop will leave the force or transfer to Whykickamoocow, and your ticket will just be dropped.

Secondly, you might win. If you are well prepared, have good facts, remain calm and keep it sensible, you may be able to prove that there is doubt.

Remember you don't have to prove that there were other vehicles in the beam, that you were incorrectly identifed, or that the cop got it wrong. You only have to show that on the balance of probabilities that he may have got it wrong.

Thirdly, the court may often impose a lesser fine than the default one.

And the best bit, is money. The instant fine system alllows a cop to issue 20 tickets a day. But it only works because people pay-on-demand.

If every ticket a cop wrote cost him 4 hours of compliance time (Thats providing disclosure, going through his notes, filing the charges, booking the court date. etc etc, plus another hour or two hanging around waiting for the hearing, then he could issue a maximum of about 150-200 tickets a year.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At the side of the road, I don't think that demanding to see the radar or taking photos etc is helpful. The key point is that the cop will try and trick you into making a statement that could be construed as a confession. So don't offer explainations, don't argue, just get your hands on the paperwork, and get on with your day.

Answer every question with a question.

"Why were you speeding ?" Begs a confession. Just say "Do you need to see my licence?"

The same with "writing in to the police". Unless the ticket is clearly mad-as-hell or there are very clearly special circumstances, it s unlikely to help.
The place to argue is the court room.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I used to say " If you did it just pay up and get on with your life"

But, IMHO New Zealand has become awash with petty rules, and stupid enforcement, because we have made it so easy for government to make rules, enforce them and get paid.

With very few exceptions, the cop on the side of the road is just doing his job, within the rules set by government. I have never actually met an arsehole cop, they have all been reasonable, and its their job to bat the ball into my court.

Every time you use their system to say no, you win, even if you lose. Because, just like the cop, you are entitled to bat the ball back.

[Little Smurf]

I generally suggest that you take every ticket to court, and certainly its what I do.

The fact it took 8 months to get to court is great - the longer the better. Thats because the police force has massive churn, as much as 20% a year. So its entirely possible that the cop will leave the force or transfer to Whykickamoocow, and your ticket will just be dropped.

Secondly, you might win. If you are well prepared, have good facts, remain calm and keep it sensible, you may be able to prove that there is doubt.

Remember you don't have to prove that there were other vehicles in the beam, that you were incorrectly identifed, or that the cop got it wrong. You only have to show that on the balance of probabilities that he may have got it wrong.

Thirdly, the court may often impose a lesser fine than the default one.

And the best bit, is money. The instant fine system alllows a cop to issue 20 tickets a day. But it only works because people pay-on-demand.

If every ticket a cop wrote cost him 4 hours of compliance time (Thats providing disclosure, going through his notes, filing the charges, booking the court date. etc etc, plus another hour or two hanging around waiting for the hearing, then he could issue a maximum of about 150-200 tickets a year.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At the side of the road, I don't think that demanding to see the radar or taking photos etc is helpful. The key point is that the cop will try and trick you into making a statement that could be construed as a confession. So don't offer explainations, don't argue, just get your hands on the paperwork, and get on with your day.

Answer every question with a question.

"Why were you speeding ?" Begs a confession. Just say "Do you need to see my licence?"

The same with "writing in to the police". Unless the ticket is clearly mad-as-hell or there are very clearly special circumstances, it s unlikely to help.
The place to argue is the court room.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I used to say " If you did it just pay up and get on with your life"

But, IMHO New Zealand has become awash with petty rules, and stupid enforcement, because we have made it so easy for government to make rules, enforce them and get paid.

With very few exceptions, the cop on the side of the road is just doing his job, within the rules set by government. I have never actually met an arsehole cop, they have all been reasonable, and its their job to bat the ball into my court.

Every time you use their system to say no, you win, even if you lose. Because, just like the cop, you are entitled to bat the ball back.

Cheers for that.

Every situation is different I know and our arguement at the time was that he wasn't stationary when he says he got our fix (we were also behind a four wheel drive) and the time frame that he had to drive down the hill, stop get out of the car and run into the middle of the road was less than 10 secs and we saw his car coming the down the hill but he says that he was stationary and this is where the photo would have been handy, well that's what our lawyer said anyway cause it woudl have proven that he was speeding and the four wheel drive in front of us was only going at 86!

Yes there are some very cool cops there always seems to be one that takes the power to the point where he enjoys it.
It has definitly been an experience the whole system and have learnt alot from it which is great makes you that much wiser as such if there is a next time, which touch wood... there isn't for a while.

Cheers for the tips is always interesting to see it from somebody else's eyes.

[peasea]

I generally suggest that you take every ticket to court, and certainly its what I do.


Good on ya, so do I. Everyone should. Fuck them.

[Renegade]

Good on ya, so do I. Everyone should. Fuck them.

even if you were doing 130kph on a straight stretch of road, beautiful day and no other vehicles and highway patrol pings ya??

[peasea]

even if you were doing 130kph on a straight stretch of road, beautiful day and no other vehicles and highway patrol pings ya??

Me? 130kph? I think you're casting aspersions.

But to answer your question; it would depend a heck of a lot on where it was and the attitude of the cop. A few years ago I was pinged for 117kph in the forest, just south of Tokoroa. Beautiful day, nothing on the road and he got me rolling off the crest of a hill. If it had been closer to home I would have dragged it out, yeah. Why not? Make them work for it, give them nothing.

Doing 17kph over the limit going past a school would be quite different.

Get my drift?

[idleidolidyll]

And as far as fixed speed cameras go, this blog from the very famous Veil Guy helps decode the bullshit that politicians, councils and police use to justify buying more revenue gathering instruments and debunk the lie that they make the roads safer (in several parts, sign up to his blog and get the latest in your mail):

http://veilguy.blogspot.com/2009/07/intelligent-transportation-systems-safe.html

[Renegade]

Me? 130kph? I think you're casting aspersions.

But to answer your question; it would depend a heck of a lot on where it was and the attitude of the cop. A few years ago I was pinged for 117kph in the forest, just south of Tokoroa. Beautiful day, nothing on the road and he got me rolling off the crest of a hill. If it had been closer to home I would have dragged it out, yeah. Why not? Make them work for it, give them nothing.

Doing 17kph over the limit going past a school would be quite different.

Get my drift?

maybe, i just think it says a lot about a person who will stand up and say yip i got caught fair and square.

We know the score but its a gamble we choose to take, i do.

From what i understand its fuck all work as the P.I.B do the file and cop just rocks up on the day.

School, agreed.

[Max Preload]

maybe, i just think it says a lot about a person who will stand up and say yip i got caught fair and square.

Yeah. It does. It says "Hey! I'm a sucker! I know it's not dangerous and so does the government, but let's open my wallet and let them hoover it out over me exceeding some arbitrary speed limit! Why should I expect to be allowed to think for myself?"

[PrincessBandit]

Yeah. It does. It says "Hey! I'm a sucker! I know it's not dangerous and so does the government, but let's open my wallet and let them hoover it out over me exceeding some arbitrary speed limit! Why should I expect to be allowed to think for myself?"

Where do you draw the line? You're travelling at 140 along a deserted stretch of road all on your Johnny lonesome, except for that van concealed behind a large shrub that you didn't see till you were almost on top of it. Bugger. You get pinged. Do you feel justified in saying "piss off, I'm not paying that. I was the only one on that piece of road, wasn't putting anyone else in danger, so stick your ticket in a dark dark place" ?


If this is the utopia of doing away with "arbitrary speed limits" our roads could turn into some pretty devastating places to be on. Everyone has their own idea of what is "safe", "acceptable", "good for me", "what I can handle, even if you can't" and I just wonder how that would pan out for road users in general. Just a question....

[idleidolidyll]

we used to have a way: it was called discretion

now the cops have had that taken away by the inland revenue dept and discretion has given way to income

in the old days you could get off doing 115 on the open road on a sunny day on a straight piece of road with no other traffic because the cop could say "you were breaking the speed limit but it wasn't dangerous so i'm gonna let you off with a waring"; nowdays that's practically extinct

the line now as per my oher thread is that cops regard ALL excess speed as dangerous and they won't even think about how fast a ferrari goes around the Nurbergring without incident (yes, it IS relevant, speed doesn't kill, stupid and dangerous driving kills and road conditions not up to the posted speed kills).

instead of the ubiquitous "speed was the major factor" we should be hearing more of this: "the abysmal road works, without signage, reduced the safe speed of the road and the rider/driver did not have time to react to that invisible gravel scattered across the road half way around a corner"

one sane way to reduce accidents is to acknowledge the degredation of road work standards over the lasr few decades

[PrincessBandit]

we used to have a way: it was called discretion

now the cops have had that taken away by the inland revenue dept and discretion has given way to income

in the old days you could get off doing 115 on the open road on a sunny day on a straight piece of road with no other traffic because the cop could say "you were breaking the speed limit but it wasn't dangerous so i'm gonna let you off with a waring"; nowdays that's practically extinct

the line now as per my oher thread is that cops regard ALL excess speed as dangerous and they won't even think about how fast a ferrari goes around the Nurbergring without incident (yes, it IS relevant, speed doesn't kill, stupid and dangerous driving kills and road conditions not up to the posted speed kills).

instead of the ubiquitous "speed was the major factor" we should be hearing more of this: "the abysmal road works, without signage, reduced the safe speed of the road and the rider/driver did not have time to react to that invisible gravel scattered across the road half way around a corner"

one sane way to reduce accidents is to acknowledge the degredation of road work standards over the lasr few decades

How do the powers that be know if you've been let off with a discretionary warning or not? Do all radar detectors hook into the big hive mind and alert the borg cube to "warning warning, speedster alert - beep beep beep - 'allo 'allo 'allo, where's the ticket? Constable XXX you are under arrest for not issuing that ticket which showed up on our record of your laser gun activation" type of thing?

Showing my ignorance of how these things actually work, I know. But unless each activation is accounted for, how do the powers that be actually know what has or hasn't been ticketed?

[idleidolidyll]

of course not but treating us all like idiots and maniacs is not the answer either but that's the status quo.

How about a cop who, when asked if 10kph over the limit on a sunny day, straight empty road etc is what he'd consider dangerous replying that safety isn't the point, the law is the point. What kind of cop would that be? I reckon they are ignorant machines collecting taxes.

So, do we hire fuckwits for cops? If the answer is yes then i understand that discretion and decision making should be taken away from them.

However, if we hire rational intelligent people who understand the difference between safe and dangerous, they can surely be trusted to use some discretion.

[Swoop]

we used to have a way: it was called discretion...
Good post Idle! Well put.

Intelligence has been weeded out of society over the years. The discretion of the police. The drivers and riders of vehicles also have to use their head.

"Ride/drive to the conditions" should replace all the other bullshit propaganda that gets thrown around by gubbinment.

[idleidolidyll]

"Ride/drive to the conditions" should replace all the other bullshit propaganda that gets thrown around by gubbinment.

I agree to a point.
The current practice of not sweeping roads after resealing and not signposting the roads makes it difficult to impossible to even tell if there is gravel on top of the sealed surface (same colour/tone). Far too often there is no warning before hitting this dangerous surface.

In those cases it is not a case of "drive to the conditions", it's a case of "the condition of the road was dangerously substandard and a danger to the driving public"

but even if this is fact, current pig policy is to blame the driver/rider for going too fast for the conditions: what a pile of smelly excrement.

The other side of the point you make is that "drive to the conditions" can just as easily mean its perfectly safe to do 130kph down that empty 3km straight on a sunny afternoon. Speed is NOT inherently dangerous; bad driving is dangerous......but try to get a cop to admit that and you'll be abused endlessly by the rest of their gang here

[Renegade]

Or maybe cops just take that position while on duty but off duty have a different opinion, i doubt they all have the same thoughts on road safety considering the Police is meant to be made up of a cross section of society.

we all have to do what the boss says to some extent if you want to keep your pay packet aye??

[Swoop]

The other side of the point you make is that "drive to the conditions" can just as easily mean its perfectly safe to do 130kph down that empty 3km straight on a sunny afternoon. Speed is NOT inherently dangerous; bad driving is dangerous......but try to get a cop to admit that and you'll be abused endlessly by the rest of their gang here
Quite so! Nothing wrong with higher speeds when applicable. Motorways are a classic example.

[saltydog]

It's all about revenue, we know that.
Warnings are non-existant.
I'm still spewing at my fucking huge fine. ($600+)
Wondering if I should pay it or contest it (wasnt really onto it at the time re: notes, pics etc, so my gut is telling me to shell out....CUNTS)
My time has been spent wisely, I now have a radar units(s) on the bike that does Ka, K, X, 2 types of laser, VG-2 cloaking, and its got an in helmet Led.
Pity i cant ride it until the 7th!

[Varkp]

yes it itches my arse aswell, got pinged for doing 121 on the way to the cold kiwi last year. cop was'nt interested in my story that i was pasing a truck throwing up spray and it was more dangerous for me remaining behind the truck. Got a lecture about the dangers of speeding ..bla bla bla bakebeans...

however

Every f'king day i comute to work and not a day goes past that i nearly become another liability to ACC bacause some moron with a mobile is having txt-sex or needs to talk to somebody because he/sha has no f'king social live..

now tell me which is more dangerous and a greater possible liabily to the state, me speeding or some numbnut with a mobile taking me out.

[idleidolidyll]

That's a good example for the case that bikes should be allowed to go faster than cars just as other traffic is allowed to go faster than trucks and vehicles with trailers.

the most dangerous place for a bike is amongst trucks and cars; the safest place is out front.

[CookMySock]

That's a good example for the case that bikes should be allowed to go faster than cars just as other traffic is allowed to go faster than trucks and vehicles with trailers.That makes no sense - where do you get your logic from? You will just catch the trucks up again more quickly. Truck and trailer units have to go slower because they don't corner like cars.


the most dangerous place for a bike is amongst trucks and cars; the safest place is out front.Yeah, but nothing forces you to pass some cars and crawl in some gap between them all.

Bikers are a lone force on the road. The rules do not apply to them, and thats the way we like it. Isn't it?

Steve

[idleidolidyll]

That makes no sense - where do you get your logic from? You will just catch the trucks up again more quickly. Truck and trailer units have to go slower because they don't corner like cars.

80 and 90kph limits help separate trucks from other vehicles. If bikes were allowed to do an extra 10kph (110) they'd have the legal ability to separate themselves from cars.
Sure, you MAY catch up to slower traffic again but at least you don't get busted for finding a nice space in front of them.

Yeah, but nothing forces you to pass some cars and crawl in some gap between them all.

Who mentioned force? You seem to be answering a question you set up for yourself instead of responding directly to my post. It's always about choice: if a biker is looney enough to WANT to sit amongst the tin tops; that's their choice and they're welcome to it. However, those of us who recognise that it is safer away from cars and trucks should have the choice to look after our safety without being penalised by the tax collectors.

Bikers are a lone force on the road. The rules do not apply to them, and thats the way we like it. Isn't it?

Steve

That might be why YOU ride but don't assign your own beliefs and practices to the rest of us. That was a dumb statement: rules apply to everyone but if they are unjust or dangerous; we should be able to have them changed.

[Varkp]

Late last night im riding back from work. All behaving nicely because i have a cop car about 50 meters in front of me. And i just know he is painting me and any passing vehicle with his radar.

Then suddenly like a mad man he slams on his breaks, turn on his xmas tree on his roof, pulls onto the side of the road and proceeds to start making a U-turn.

I'm fairly certain he didn't spot me until the last moment, all because he was in chase mode to go ticket a speeder from the opposite direction.

Now this begs the question.

Is issuing infringements more important to the cops then the safety of other road users.

[jim.cox]

Is issuing infringements more important to the cops then the safety of other road users.

Yes absolutely. There's no safety quota and it generates no revenue you know