$1000 fine for 'cruising' boy racers affect bikers in Christchurch too?

[markh14]

$1000 fine for 'cruising' boy racers:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10625108

Does this affect motorbikes in Christchurch too? I love cruising around Christchurch on my bike and in my car. Both have warrants. I don't see why I should be banned from 'cruising' when my car and bike are both legal.

I can't find this new bylaw consultation on the Christchurch City Council's website yet, but for now I am emailing the Mayor here:

http://www.ccc.govt.nz/thecouncil/mayor/contact.aspx

I am going to tell him that he shouldn't pass this bylaw into law because it's going to punish the law obiding christchurch people from cruising around the streets. And people would only be able to be fined if the police are there, so if the police are there they should just check if people are obeying the speed limits and ticket those that don't.

[CookMySock]

Just do what ever you like and decline to discuss it with them. They aren't interested in targetting law-abiding people - they just wan't a card up their sleeve to play when asshole idiots are making a pain of themselves, but there is nothing illegal happening.

Steve

[rastuscat]

The plan is to target anti-social road users. The cops in Chch stopped using the term Boy Racer a few weeks ago, they now call them anti-social road users.

I like cruising too, but I have no fear of the new law as I don't make a bloody nuisance of myself, I don't piss people off (well, I piss my ex-wife off, but that's another story).

The bylaw is trying to fix the problem that caused businesses to close on Bealey Ave, causes people to avoid coming to town for fear of intimidation, that sort of thing. Basically, don't act like an anti-social road user and you won't be treated like one.

So there.

[Patrick]

Some on here think Police target the innocent....

Never ticketed or arrrested an "innocent..."

Aint worth the paperwork.

[Jantar]

A planned new Christchurch City Council bylaw could see boy racers fined up to $1000 if they are caught repeatedly "cruising" the city's main streets
Personally I would keep as far away from the city's main streets as possible when on a bike. Cruising, in irself, isn't banned. it is the continuous cruising around the same circuit they are trying to stop.

[{.bLanK}G_o_D]

Some on here think Police target the innocent....

Never ticketed or arrrested an "innocent..."

Aint worth the paperwork.

That's because we're all guilty until proven innocent isn't it? :buggerd:
(just taking the piss dude, nothing personal to you or your job. ;) )

[Ixion]

Twice in an hour would not normally be deemed "continuous". Also, I note the reference to number plate reading cameras. Which suggests they may be looking at some sort of automated system - same number appears twice within an hour and it's instant ticket. Sucks if you came back to pick up your wife.

[kerryhare]

I don't have a problem at all with what they are planning.

[Spuds1234]

I don't have a problem at all with what they are planning.

QFT.

Its going to be fairly obvious as to who is cruising and who isnt.

[markh14]

Does anyone know what the law defines "cruising" as? If it is continuous driving around the same street then that sucks because what if i drive around the same streets looking for my friend who i am supposed to pickup and my friend doesn't have her cellphone? Does the law allow for a "reasonable excuse"?
If it does, then that still sucks because not being about to cruise around same streets continuously means i can't show off to all the ladies because i don't think that will be a 'reasonable excuse'. It would suck if you needed a "reasonable excuse" to cruise. What would happen if the council said you need a 'reasonable excuse' to walk around on the footpath continuously, i would not like that because i wouldn't feel free, i would feel kinda not like i'm in a democracy, because having to give an excuse when i'm just walking around a public street is wrong.
Why don't the cops just patrol the streets and arrest the criminals? The council could put up some cctv and the cops could review it if a crime is reported.

[Ixion]

Does anyone know what the law defines "cruising" as? If it is continuous driving around the same street then that sucks because what if i drive around the same streets looking for my friend who i am supposed to pickup and my friend doesn't have her cellphone? Does the law allow for a "reasonable excuse"?
...

Chch have defined it as going the same spot twice within an hour. No, no reasonable excuse defence.

[onearmedbandit]

Mark, if you're just cruising around, not causing any issues, be it excessive noise or dangerous driving, then I'm sure the cops will not even care about you, because you're not on their radar. If however, you're rev'ing the nuts off your Primera with 3" pipe, drifting your Silvia, or doing rolling burn outs in your 355ci HQ then you're exactly who they are targeting.

So, do you think you're safe or not?

[kwaka_crasher]

Mark, if you're just cruising around, not causing any issues, be it excessive noise or dangerous driving, then I'm sure the cops will not even care about you, because you're not on their radar. If however, you're rev'ing the nuts off your Primera with 3" pipe, drifting your Silvia, or doing rolling burn outs in your 355ci HQ then you're exactly who they are targeting.

There are already laws to cover those situations. But this by-law allows them to harrass anyone they wish who is going about their otherwise lawful activities. You might not think that's not going to happen to you but what's to stop it?

[jimichelle]

I don't have a problem at all with what they are planning.
and that was what they said when it was the acc protest rally days

[peasea]

Sucks if you came back to pick up your wife.

Excellent choice of words.

So many meanings.

[onearmedbandit]

There are already laws to cover those situations. But this by-law allows them to harrass anyone they wish who is going about their otherwise lawful activities. You might not think that's not going to happen to you but what's to stop it?

Yeah but they have to catch them in the act. Look in my opinion this is a bit of a storm in a tea cup, I believe that most police are not going to be interested in pulling over someone solely for cruising. What this law gives the police is another arrow to nail the ones that are causing issues.

Oh and what's to stop it happening to me? I gave up cruising over 10yrs ago. When we congregated on the weekend nights, and I did in everything from 5.0l to 7.2l V8's, Skyline turbo, WRX's plus whatever car I was out in, or if we turned up on the bikes, we would meet up on Colombo St, right in the middle of town, the head off out where we wouldn't bring attention to ourselves. These guys however need to show off to all and sundry, so they race, drift, wheelspin their way around the 4 avenues circling the central city. They've brought it on themselves and have no sympathy from me.

[kwaka_crasher]

Yeah but they have to catch them in the act.

You mean like.. have some proof? Heaven forbid! That's ridiculous... who the hell thought that up? :whistle:


Look in my opinion this is a bit of a storm in a tea cup, I believe that most police are not going to be interested in pulling over someone solely for cruising. What this law gives the police is another arrow to nail the ones that are causing issues.

Or anyone they don't like the look of.


Oh and what's to stop it happening to me?

Absolutely nothing. And that's my very point.

[{.bLanK}G_o_D]

Yeah but they have to catch them in the act. Look in my opinion this is a bit of a storm in a tea cup, I believe that most police are not going to be interested in pulling over someone solely for cruising. What this law gives the police is another arrow to nail the ones that are causing issues.

Oh and what's to stop it happening to me? I gave up cruising over 10yrs ago. When we congregated on the weekend nights, and I did in everything from 5.0l to 7.2l V8's, Skyline turbo, WRX's plus whatever car I was out in, or if we turned up on the bikes, we would meet up on Colombo St, right in the middle of town, the head off out where we wouldn't bring attention to ourselves. These guys however need to show off to all and sundry, so they race, drift, wheelspin their way around the 4 avenues circling the central city. They've brought it on themselves and have no sympathy from me.

+1 I totally agree.
It's not a law to "bust cruisers" It an aid to help the police sort out the trouble makers.
If you have half a brain it's easy to cause a nuisance while still not actually breaking the law.


You mean like.. have some proof?

No.
All they need is reasonable doubt

When my bike gets back from the mechanics, I'll be out cruising heaps, got 10 years to catch up on. :) I'm not worried about this new law either. I'm not out to cause a nuisance, just out to enjoy the new wheels.

[davereid]

Look in my opinion this is a bit of a storm in a tea cup, I believe that most police are not going to be interested in pulling over someone solely for cruising. What this law gives the police is another arrow to nail the ones that are causing issues.

I absolutely agree with the principle. Boy racers spend endless $$$ depositing rubber on a corner very near my home, and I hate it with a passion.

But this law is crap. As pointed out, I fail the test by just looking for an address I cant find, a wife who wont answer her cellphone, or a wandering dog.

Its completely irrelevant that I would not be in the chosen few who get a ticket.

Once again, NZ fails the basic test of freedom, we chuck away our rights "because its only the jews.. err boy racers".

[Skyryder]

All they need is reasonable doubt

Should be be Sideshow's slogan campaign.

I got reasonable doubt about Bob Parker................along with many here in Christchurch.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

I absolutely agree with the principle. Boy racers spend endless $$$ depositing rubber on a corner very near my home, and I hate it with a passion.

But this law is crap. As pointed out, I fail the test by just looking for an address I cant find, a wife who wont answer her cellphone, or a wandering dog.

Its completely irrelevant that I would not be in the chosen few who get a ticket.

Once again, NZ fails the basic test of freedom, we chuck away our rights "because its only the jews.. err boy racers".

Alll they need is toll for Jap cars after 9.00 for drivers with first time licences, flashy chicks sitting way to close to the driver and an extra toll for bacdk seat passanger.

My campaign slogan should I run for mayor is 'FLASHY CAR ....... FLASHY CHICK........ FLASH YA WALLET.


Skyryder

[cs363]

Yeah but they have to catch them in the act. Look in my opinion this is a bit of a storm in a tea cup, I believe that most police are not going to be interested in pulling over someone solely for cruising. What this law gives the police is another arrow to nail the ones that are causing issues.

Oh and what's to stop it happening to me? I gave up cruising over 10yrs ago. When we congregated on the weekend nights, and I did in everything from 5.0l to 7.2l V8's, Skyline turbo, WRX's plus whatever car I was out in, or if we turned up on the bikes, we would meet up on Colombo St, right in the middle of town, the head off out where we wouldn't bring attention to ourselves. These guys however need to show off to all and sundry, so they race, drift, wheelspin their way around the 4 avenues circling the central city. They've brought it on themselves and have no sympathy from me.

I think you're right - people seem to be missing the point, or maybe they didn't read the whole article - excerpt here: Council staff are proposing a one-hour period for the cruising bylaw. If drivers use the same stretch of specified road more frequently and have an overly noisy vehicle or are in a convoy, they will breach the bylaw.

I really can't see some innocent lost tourist or a sales rep etc trying to find their way round having any issue with this. Geez, I nearly always end up getting lost in Chch's one-way system when I visit and end up going round several times to find where I'm supposed to be and I'm not losing any sleep over this.

[Flip]

Right on the nail CS363. If you drive up the same street repeatedly at night in a noisy vehicle in a convoy they can nail your ass. Its a strange by-law that targets the behavoiur of a specif group of road users.

Davereid I see this more as using the law to stop a dangeriously disruptive and anti social group in their tracks, a bit like stopping the behaviour of brown shirts in the early 1930's before they became the Nazi party. It's the average folk in Christchurch who have demanded the Govt do some thing. If the boi racers were being treated like Jews we would be building extermination camps.

[davereid]

I didn't see the bit about being in convoy and excessive noise before.

I guess I'm just old enough to have watched NZ (and more so the UK and AUS), quietly morph from countries where its citizens had rights to countries where they don't.

Once upon a time there was a presumption of innocence, and an important principle that you don't get punished unless you are proven in court to have committed a crime.

We dumped that one with earlier boy racer legislation. Now you lose your licence and car if the policeman alleges you lost traction. No mucking around with the courts there !

In the UK you no longer have the right to remain silent, and a majority verdict in a trial will do !

I completely sympathise with the poor old residents of Christchurch, who quiet correctly have had enough. And I can't offer a better solution.

But a law like this could affect bikers on a group run, it could affect a group of motor-caravanners looking for a park, or a poker run car rally etc etc etc.

When we approve it by saying "yes we fit the definition sometimes, but they aren't looking for us, we are only on a poker run..." we have let our guard down, and may one day come to regret it.

[Toaster]

Hey Spank.... are you going to introduce an I.Q. test for new members at some stage? Please?

[onearmedbandit]

I didn't see the bit about being in convoy and excessive noise before.

I guess I'm just old enough to have watched NZ (and more so the UK and AUS), quietly morph from countries where its citizens had rights to countries where they don't.

What about the 'rights' of those who have a problem with those who cause the problem in the first instance?


Once upon a time there was a presumption of innocence, and an important principle that you don't get punished unless you are proven in court to have committed a crime.

And once upon a time it was safe to leave your keys in your car and your house unlocked while you slept at night. And once upon a time people wouldn't have ripped off 'honesty boxes' from outside farms selling fruit and veges. Should we blame the farmer for taking away what was once a fantastic way of getting cheap fresh produce simply because of a few theives? Society has changed in a lot of ways.



But a law like this could affect bikers on a group run, it could affect a group of motor-caravanners looking for a park, or a poker run car rally etc etc etc.

When we approve it by saying "yes we fit the definition sometimes, but they aren't looking for us, we are only on a poker run..." we have let our guard down, and may one day come to regret it.

The bylaw would have to be severely modified to fit the scenario you propose.

All in all I'm really not about extra regulation and further laws to shape society, but if enough people complain, and they have, what is the government to do? If the guys cruising in their cars took it out of town or up the hills this would not be an issue, but instead they race around the 4 avenues. Hello, that's asking for trouble. We used to gridlock Colombo street every Friday and Saturday night in our lowered, loud, obnoxious cars. It would be bumper to bumper from the Square to Milton Street in Sydenham. Never had problems with the locals or police then. Sure they'd have checkpoints etc, but never ever was there any talk of bylaws to limit our activities. That's mostly down to no high speed driving, fuck it was impossible.

[imdying]

The only travesty here is that many people have been asking for action for years, with no relief in sight, and yet that stupid Bradford bitch has managed to foist upon us a law that nobody in the country wanted.

[peasea]

The only travesty here is that many people have been asking for action for years, with no relief in sight, and yet that stupid Bradford bitch has managed to foist upon us a law that nobody in the country wanted.

And people think America's weird.

[markh14]

here is the chch bylaw:

http://ccc.govt.nz/thecouncil/newsmedia/mediareleases/2010/february/201002113.aspx

Cruising is defined in the Land Transport Act 1998 as driving repeatedly in the same direction over the same section of a road in a motor vehicle in a manner that—

(a) draws attention to the power or sound of the engine of the motor vehicle being driven; or

(b) creates a convoy that—

(i) is formed otherwise than in trade; and

(ii) impedes traffic flow

The proposed bylaw will also give the Council the power to set the period of time that must elapse between each time a driver drives on a specified road for the driver to avoid being regarded as cruising. Council is also consulting on, a proposal for this to be 60 minutes.

The Council has been advised that the proposed bylaw has no inconsistencies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

So a convoy of bikers driving to a friends house to pick a friend up in a convoy that causes traffic to backup, and come back within 60 minutes down the same street would be "cruising". I'm surprised it supposedly doesn't breach the bill of rights because i think the bill of rights give everyone freedom of movement.
Just imagine if this law covered people walking on the footpath in a group to their friends house and back within 60 minutes and caused other people on the footpath to have to walk slower.

As far as i know you can play music on your car stereo in public as loud as you want and you can rev your car as loud as you want in public, so i don't know why you'd fine someone for revving their engine when it aint a crime to rev it.

[Patrick]

As far as i know you can play music on your car stereo in public as loud as you want and you can rev your car as loud as you want in public, so i don't know why you'd fine someone for revving their engine when it aint a crime to rev it.

Vehicle emitting excessive noise = (from memory) $50 fine and 20 or 25 demerits. This includes revving and sterio noise.

[Toaster]

The only travesty here is that many people have been asking for action for years, with no relief in sight, and yet that stupid Bradford bitch has managed to foist upon us a law that nobody in the country wanted.

Now ain't that the truth!

[Ixion]

The council bylaw


If drivers use the same stretch of specified road more frequently and have an overly noisy vehicle or are in a convoy

The law


driving repeatedly in the same direction over the same section of a road in a motor vehicle in a manner that—

(a) draws attention to the power or sound of the engine of the motor vehicle being driven; or

(b) creates a convoy that—

(i) is formed otherwise than in trade; and

(ii) impedes traffic flow


Now, the LAW says that the vehicle must be driven in a manner which draws attention to the power or sound of the engine. The COUNCIL say that an offence will be committed merely if the vehicle is "overly noisy". That is not the same thing. A noisy vehicle may (and often will) be driven in a manner that does NOT draw attention to the sound (the better to avoid tickets).

Moreover, the law requires that the "cruising" be "repeated" and "in the same direction". That is not at all the same as the Council claim that they can punish drivers for the crime of driving over the same stretch of road (like as not in different directions) within an hour.

So, if I, definately past the age of a "boi" (but note that nothing in either the law or the bylaw restricts it to a "boi", or indeed a boy - or excludes motorcycles), and my wife, drive to X , attend a meeting ,and 40 minutes later drive back, the council claim that we have both have committed a quite serious offence. A claim that is both manifestly repugnant to justice , and moreover, unsupported by the legislation. The council also extend (without legal basis) the law by ignoring the requirment that the "convoy" not be in pursuit of trade, and that it must impede traffic flow.

The "excessive noise" part I would regard as nugatory. Police will ALWAYS claim that ANY vehicle is excessively noisy. And two vehicles may be a convoy.

They leave unspecified what happens if on the way in there are two vehicles (a convoy) but only one on the way out. If there are only required to be two (or more) in one direction, then that saving is also nugatory, since the police will simply say "there was a car behind you , that was a convoy").

So far Auckland has made no mention of pursuing this tyrannical and unjust process. If it does, I shall certainly object in the strongest possible terms.

It seems fairly clear that this law will amke evening group rides illegal.

[Berries]

It seems fairly clear that this law will amke evening group rides illegal.

Well if you are riding round and round Cathedral Square with loud pipes all night so it should.

What are the Council meant to do ? Quite rightly, IMO, they want to put a stop to loud cars doing circuits, driving like knobs and generally intimidating people, as well as occasionally knocking them over and killing them. I've stayed at hotels in the square many a time and know what it is like - personally I would set up a snipers nest in the OGB to sort all this out. If they write legislation that is way too specific then it won't be able to be enforced. Having it more general like this allows those they want to be targeted to be targeted. I find it very hard to believe that a bloke and his wife going to a meeting will find themselves in trouble, unless of course their Skyline has cut springs, a dustbin exhaust and they turn up in a sideways drift. If the general population are targeted then the whole thing will fall over very quickly.

In answer to the original question yes, I am sure this legislation can be aimed at two wheeled users as well as four, even if the vehicle type isn't defined. But two wheeled users aren't the problem. At the moment.

[onearmedbandit]

So, if I, definately past the age of a "boi" (but note that nothing in either the law or the bylaw restricts it to a "boi", or indeed a boy - or excludes motorcycles), and my wife, drive to X , attend a meeting ,and 40 minutes later drive back, the council claim that we have both have committed a quite serious offence. A claim that is both manifestly repugnant to justice , and moreover, unsupported by the legislation.

Exactly, because that type of behaviour is a perfect example of why the rsidents of Christchurch made such a fuss that the council just had to act. The police have been waiting years to stamp out this unsocial behaviour.

[huff3r]

Exactly, because that type of behaviour is a perfect example of why the rsidents of Christchurch made such a fuss that the council just had to act. The police have been waiting years to stamp out this unsocial behaviour.

The biggest thing i dont get, and i dont want to start a fight here, is the whole "antisocial" thing. Because as far as I'm aware, cruising is all about hanging out with mates and meeting new people, and generally just having a good time. I get that it is very much "antisocial" in the sense that it is against a lot of the rest of societys wishes, and alienates them in that way. But to me it's also an extremely social event. Just like a KB organised group ride is.

BTW. Just before people jump down my throat, i don't cruise (yet?) and my car is whisper quiet.

[Spuds1234]

The biggest thing i dont get, and i dont want to start a fight here, is the whole "antisocial" thing.

If all their cars were whisper quiet, they didnt pour deisel on the corners, didnt tear up the road doing burnouts, be generally destructive, and throw bottles at cops and other cars then we woudnt need a law like this now would we.

[Patrick]

If all their cars were whisper quiet, they didnt pour deisel on the corners, didnt tear up the road doing burnouts, be generally destructive, and throw bottles at cops and other cars then we woudnt need a law like this now would we.

NOw THAT is why the law has been introduced.

Unlike "the sky is falling" opinions from some here.

Americarna is coming to town here and according to some posts, that would end in tears as everyone was going to be locked up during the Friday Night Cruise.

Might be one way to get a good close up look inside those machines though.....

[markh14]

The council bylaw

The law
Now, the LAW says that the vehicle must be driven in a manner which draws attention to the power or sound of the engine. The COUNCIL say that an offence will be committed merely if the vehicle is "overly noisy". That is not the same thing. A noisy vehicle may (and often will) be driven in a manner that does NOT draw attention to the sound (the better to avoid tickets).

Moreover, the law requires that the "cruising" be "repeated" and "in the same direction". That is not at all the same as the Council claim that they can punish drivers for the crime of driving over the same stretch of road (like as not in different directions) within an hour.

So, if I, definately past the age of a "boi" (but note that nothing in either the law or the bylaw restricts it to a "boi", or indeed a boy - or excludes motorcycles), and my wife, drive to X , attend a meeting ,and 40 minutes later drive back, the council claim that we have both have committed a quite serious offence. A claim that is both manifestly repugnant to justice , and moreover, unsupported by the legislation. The council also extend (without legal basis) the law by ignoring the requirment that the "convoy" not be in pursuit of trade, and that it must impede traffic flow.

The "excessive noise" part I would regard as nugatory. Police will ALWAYS claim that ANY vehicle is excessively noisy. And two vehicles may be a convoy.

They leave unspecified what happens if on the way in there are two vehicles (a convoy) but only one on the way out. If there are only required to be two (or more) in one direction, then that saving is also nugatory, since the police will simply say "there was a car behind you , that was a convoy").

So far Auckland has made no mention of pursuing this tyrannical and unjust process. If it does, I shall certainly object in the strongest possible terms.

It seems fairly clear that this law will amke evening group rides illegal.

I hate this law. Glad you agree. And aren't there already other laws to deal with boy racers and people doing burnouts. Lets list some problems and see if there are already laws to deal with these problems:

Burnouts: Police can fine you for having a sustained loss of traction
Revving engine to draw attention to vehicle: Is there a law for this?
Illegal racing: Police can give you a fine for breaking the speed limit. Impound your vehicle.
Pouring oil on road: What law can the police use to stop this?
Convoys forcefully driving slow to block traffic: Police can fine people for impeding the flow of traffic by driving well below 50kmph.

If I have missed some please list them here and tell me if there already is a law for them.

[Ixion]

I hate this law. Glad you agree. And aren't there already other laws to deal with boy racers and people doing burnouts. Lets list some problems and see if there are already laws to deal with these problems:

Burnouts: Police can fine you for having a sustained loss of traction
Revving engine to draw attention to vehicle: Is there a law for this?
Illegal racing: Police can give you a fine for breaking the speed limit. Impound your vehicle.
Pouring oil on road: What law can the police use to stop this?
Convoys forcefully driving slow to block traffic: Police can fine people for impeding the flow of traffic by driving well below 50kmph.

If I have missed some please list them here and tell me if there already is a law for them.

Most are covered quite adequately by 'Operating vehicle in noisy fashion' (covers stereos and revving engines, not just exhaust); and 'Inconsiderate driving' (covers impeding traffic , generally being a prat). Oil on the road there's a law against depositing any hazardous substance on a road way. Been there for years and years. And the preceeding 'boi racer' laws made putting diesel on the raod a specific offense.

That's one main reason why I oppose this law - it's legislation looking for a justification. All the 'antisocial' allegations against boi-racers are already well within the reach of the law.

[peasea]

Most are covered quite adequately by 'Operating vehicle in noisy fashion' (covers stereos and revving engines, not just exhaust); and 'Inconsiderate driving' (covers impeding traffic , generally being a prat). Oil on the road there's a law against depositing any hazardous substance on a road way. Been there for years and years. And the preceeding 'boi racer' laws made putting diesel on the raod a specific offense.

That's one main reason why I oppose this law - it's legislation looking for a justification. All the 'antisocial' allegations against boi-racers are already well within the reach of the law.

Quite right; most of what the buggers get up to is well covered by existing laws. What we have here is a bunch of politicians running around, grandstanding and pontificating to make it look as though they are on top of, or getting on top of, the situation. (Fat chance.)

[peasea]

NOw THAT is why the law has been introduced.

Unlike "the sky is falling" opinions from some here.

Americarna is coming to town here and according to some posts, that would end in tears as everyone was going to be locked up during the Friday Night Cruise.

Might be one way to get a good close up look inside those machines though.....

So; you'd use your police powers to get a look under someone's bonnet? That sounds like an abuse of your power and quite possibly harrassment. (No surprises there.)

You could always try asking politely, it wouldn't hurt.

[red mermaid]

Police already have the right to inspect a vehicle and that includes under the bonnet.




So; you'd use your police powers to get a look under someone's bonnet? That sounds like an abuse of your power and quite possibly harrassment. (No surprises there.)

You could always try asking politely, it wouldn't hurt.

[peasea]

Police already have the right to inspect a vehicle and that includes under the bonnet.

Actually, I think you'll find it's a 'power', not a 'right' and it comes as no surprise you think it's a 'right' as arrogance is a pre-requisite for the 'job'.
To use that power simply for your own gratification is indeed an abuse of that power.

[kwaka_crasher]

If all their cars were whisper quiet, they didnt pour deisel on the corners, didnt tear up the road doing burnouts, be generally destructive, and throw bottles at cops and other cars then we woudnt need a law like this now would we.


NOw THAT is why the law has been introduced.

Really? So all those things aren't already covered by existing legislation? That was a real oversight! :rolleyes:

[SMOKEU]

Vehicle emitting excessive noise = (from memory) $50 fine and 20 or 25 demerits. This includes revving and sterio noise.

I got a $150 fine for that and no demerits for that 'offence'.

[PeeJay]

If all their cars were whisper quiet, they didnt pour deisel on the corners, didnt tear up the road doing burnouts, be generally destructive, and throw bottles at cops and other cars then we woudnt need a law like this now would we.

Whats wrong with the laws they already have covering these situations ?

[kwaka_crasher]

Whats wrong with the laws they already have covering these situations ?

Nothing. They just want new ones so they can enclose more people in the bullying net...


I got a $150 fine for that and no demerits for that 'offence'.

It's changed - 2008 I think it was. It's now $50 and 25 points. IIRC it used to be 10 demerits too but they never actually recorded them - only ever speeding.

[markh14]

If you are from Christchurch like me and you don't like the proposed "Cruising" bylaw you can now have your say here:

http://www1.ccc.govt.nz/haveyoursay/ConsultationView.aspx?ConsultId=687

I told them I don't want the bylaw because there are already laws to stop boy racers from speeding and racing and so on. Banning cruising is taking away fun from innocent people. Cruisers are rate payers too. The road is not just for people who want to drive to/from work.

[Spuds1234]

I was at Denny's last night and while the boy racers weren't doing anything illegal, it was still fecking annoying to hear them go past Dennys and hear the loud exhausts every 5 minutes as they accelerated away from the light changes.

I this law gets them off the road, or helps get them off the road, them I'm all for it. Fuck the annoying pricks.

[muzz]

I was at Denny's last night and while the boy racers weren't doing anything illegal, it was still fecking annoying to hear them go past Dennys and hear the loud exhausts every 5 minutes as they accelerated away from the light changes.

I this law gets them off the road, or helps get them off the road, them I'm all for it. Fuck the annoying pricks.

If they are not breaking any law that is in place and you keep whining about them they might think that you are an annoying prick.
If thier vehicals are noisey or they are racing or doing burnouts then they should be done. laws are in place for these things.
Making new laws like this is just casting a wide net, that at any stage can catch anyone at anytime, and the interpertation of the officer is not always correct.

[callums]

i made my submission. i tried to include some views of those expressed in this thread. here is the text of the submission i made >>

I and 21 of my friends do not support the Christchurch City Council Cruising Bylaw 2010. It should not be passed into law. This bylaw would be a serious restriction of civil liberties by restricting freedom of movement that the Bill of Rights gives all New Zealanders. As long as New Zealanders obey the laws of the land they should not be punished for just "cruising" in their vehicle. Having a bylaw that puts a time limit of less than 60 minutes on when a driver is not allowed to "cruise" through the same road is a danger to democracy.

If you look at the current laws, there are actually already laws to prevent some of the things that this bylaw wants to do. Here is a list of examples of existing laws to prevent 'boy racing' activities:

Racing a vehicle on a public street: The Land Transport Act enables the police to impound a vehicle for 28 days if the vehicle was used in an illegal street race.

Speeding: Police can fine drivers for speeding and drivers get demerit points.

Pouring oil on the road: The Police may serve the person with a $600 infringement notice. The person may either pay the $600, or choose to defend the charge in Court.

Impeding the flow of traffic: If a driver's speed, when driving, is such as to impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic, that driver must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, move the vehicle as far as practicable to the left side of the roadway when this is necessary to allow following traffic to pass. If a driver does impede the flow of traffic the police can give the driver a fine.

A driver should be able to form a convoy with other vehicles as long as the drivers obey all the existing road rules. The road is for all drivers and limiting why a person can drive on the road is un-democratic, especially when the driver has a license and the vehicle has a warrant and rego and the driver is obeying all the other road rules. The "cruising" part of the bylaw would be similar to limiting why people can walk on a footpath so if people walking on a footpath in a group are laughing and having fun and taking up space on the footpath, that would be illegal. That is why banning "cruising" is un-democratic.

Drawing attention to the power or sound of the engine of the motor vehicle being driven should not be illegal as it does not go on for a long period of time because if a driver continuously revved their engine for hours it would damage the engine. Revving an engine is not like a stereo that you can just leave on full volume for hours and hours. Most people rev their engines to either test it or to show off, not to disturb anyone, so if this bylaw was introduced it would punish alot of innocent drivers. With music from a stereo playing at a person's house party, the stereo is allowed to be loud but there is a decibel (dB) limit so if the music is within the limit and the neighbours can hear it, the neighbours would have to put up with it. With a car engine there is no volume control so drivers cannot rev their engine to a certain volume limit so that is why banning revving of the engine is unfair because there cannot be a compromise.

So for these reasons this entire bylaw should not be passed into law.

[Spuds1234]

Most people rev their engines to either test it or to show off, not to disturb anyone, so if this bylaw was introduced it would punish alot of innocent drivers. With music from a stereo playing at a person's house party, the stereo is allowed to be loud but there is a decibel (dB) limit so if the music is within the limit and the neighbours can hear it, the neighbours would have to put up with it. With a car engine there is no volume control so drivers cannot rev their engine to a certain volume limit so that is why banning revving of the engine is unfair because there cannot be a compromise.

Most people rev their engines to test it or to show off, well its the showing off thats annoying business and people in and around the central city so if your reving your engine to show off then the police wont be punishing innocent drivers will they?

Excessive noise in and around the home is defined as: Any noise that is ‘under human control and of such a nature as to unreasonably interfere with the peace, comfort, and convenience of any person (other than a person in or at the place from which the noise is being emitted), but specifically excludes noise from aircraft in flights, vehicles on the road and trains.

It doesn't mention a db limit at all. So if your playing music and your neighbors can hear it then you can be done for excessive noise.

Also under normal driving you shouldn't need to rev the snot out of your engine and make a heap of noise.

[kwaka_crasher]

People these days are so precious.

[markh14]

Most people rev their engines to test it or to show off, well its the showing off thats annoying business and people in and around the central city so if your reving your engine to show off then the police wont be punishing innocent drivers will they?

Excessive noise in and around the home is defined as: Any noise that is ‘under human control and of such a nature as to unreasonably interfere with the peace, comfort, and convenience of any person (other than a person in or at the place from which the noise is being emitted), but specifically excludes noise from aircraft in flights, vehicles on the road and trains.

It doesn't mention a db limit at all. So if your playing music and your neighbors can hear it then you can be done for excessive noise.

Also under normal driving you shouldn't need to rev the snot out of your engine and make a heap of noise.

from the christchurch city council's own website:

The Council can offer advice on possible solutions to all noise but can only act on excessive noise created by the following:

•musical instruments/equipment
•electrical appliances
•machinery
•a person or groups of people
•explosion or vibration.

No mention of vehicles. And i have heard trucks that are just running idle that are louder than a car's engine rev. If businesses are annoyed by trucks idle at traffic lights should trucks be banned from driving in the city? if businesses are annoyed by people with tattoos walking around on the street, should people with tattoos be banned from walking around the street?

businesses should just soundproof their building or use ear plugs.

[Patrick]

I, like many others, enjoy going out for dinner. I like sitting outside in the fresh air. Unfortunately, these boy racer wankers make so much noise it just makes it unpleasant for soooooo many people. Why should we have to put up with it? These racers with their wank wank engines and psssht dumps... It's just a shame there is never a large rock around to throw at them. Now that, I would pay to see.....

[onearmedbandit]

businesses should just soundproof their building or use ear plugs.

Sorry mate but if you want to win this one you'll need a much stronger argument then that lol. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for increasing laws, rather effective policing of current ones. Maybe if the guys and gals cruising in their cars started showing some self-restraint this wouldn't be an issue.

[markh14]

I, like many others, enjoy going out for dinner. I like sitting outside in the fresh air. Unfortunately, these boy racer wankers make so much noise it just makes it unpleasant for soooooo many people. Why should we have to put up with it? These racers with their wank wank engines and psssht dumps... It's just a shame there is never a large rock around to throw at them. Now that, I would pay to see.....

the thing is the boy racers are not telling you to do anything. you want them to stop making noise, when they are not even telling you to stop enjoying your dinner are they? would you like it if boy racers told you that they don't like the look of people eating outside and they told you to go inside?

[onearmedbandit]

the thing is the boy racers are not telling you to do anything. you want them to stop making noise, when they are not even telling you to stop enjoying your dinner are they? would you like it if boy racers told you that they don't like the look of people eating outside and they told you to go inside?

Are you seriously using examples like the above as arguments?

[Deano]

Are you seriously using examples like the above as arguments?

I think the 14 in his login is probably his age.

[Flip]

I think the 14 in his login is probably his age.

Probably

I actually almost don't support this by law because it is misconceived, however I do strongly support (as a resident of Christchurch) the goal of the by-law to drive the 'anti social' road users away. It's the residents who have demanded that further and more drastic steps are taken to shut down down the 'anti social' vehicle problem in Christchurch.

It's a by-law that will allow video surveillance by automatic number plate recognition software to be used by the Police in Christchurch. It's Policing without a Policeman. It's also very hard to argue with video footage in court.

Don't forget bikes only have one number plate so you will have to be very unlucky to get pinged with one of these.

[Patrick]

the thing is the boy racers are not telling you to do anything. you want them to stop making noise, when they are not even telling you to stop enjoying your dinner are they? would you like it if boy racers told you that they don't like the look of people eating outside and they told you to go inside?

Are you serious? Eating outside at a restaurant enjoying good food without the noise of wank wank racers and pssssht cans and 44 gallon drum exhausts have been a pleasure for years. Eating is a need. These shitbox cars are a gimmick, over compensating for something, at a guess.....


Are you seriously using examples like the above as arguments?

Me thinks he sniffs petrol too often....


I think the 14 in his login is probably his age.

Now that could explain a bit.......

[kwaka_crasher]

I actually almost don't support this by law because it is misconceived

Why not simply push the Police to enforce the already perfectly adequate laws?


Don't forget bikes only have one number plate so you will have to be very unlucky to get pinged with one of these.

It should never be a matter of luck.

[Spuds1234]

the thing is the boy racers are not telling you to do anything. you want them to stop making noise, when they are not even telling you to stop enjoying your dinner are they? would you like it if boy racers told you that they don't like the look of people eating outside and they told you to go inside?

What you dont seem to understand is that the boy racers are fucking off the majority (and it's an actual majority not just very few vocal people), and the majority have decided that they dont like it and that they've had enough. Hence the new laws. Its the majority telling you to fuck off and that we dont want your cars around our town.

[kwaka_crasher]

What you dont seem to understand is that the boy racers are fucking off the majority (and it's an actual majority not just very few vocal people), and the majority have decided that they dont like it and that they've had enough. Hence the new laws. Its the majority telling you to fuck off and that we dont want your cars around our town.

Why aren't the majority (which I'm sure is in fact just a vocal minority anyway) tell the Police to enforce the existing laws which are perfectly adequate for noisey vehicles?

[Spuds1234]

Why aren't the majority (which I'm sure is in fact just a vocal minority anyway) tell the Police to enforce the existing laws which are perfectly adequate for noisey vehicles?

Because you can have a vehicle that meets existing noise laws and is still bloody irritating when it drives around and around and around and around and around and around town all night.

[kwaka_crasher]

Because you can have a vehicle that meets existing noise laws and is still bloody irritating when it drives around and around and around and around and around and around town all night.

So what you're saying is they should only be permitted to go where and when you think they should go in their legal cars?

That sounds like tyranny.

[Spuds1234]

So what you're saying is they should only be permitted to go where and when you think they should go in their legal cars?

That sounds like tyranny.

Thats not close to tyranny. Tyranny would be me rulling this country and saying "I dont like noisey cars so you cant have them". What this law is saying is its ok to drive from A to B but not do a circle around town for no reason other than show off. If you like driving so much you would go for a drive in the country, to see the sights etc (cos then your going from A to B)

What Im saying is, I dont care if you go past once, going from A to B, hell drive back from B to A for all I care. Just dont drive around the same piece of road all the time, people dont like it (after all its what the law is trying to stop).

Why do you think that other noisey forms of traffic havnt been brought into this fight? Because the majority of other noisey traffic is only going from A to B and only goes past once.

[Ixion]

What you dont seem to understand is that the boy racers are fucking off the majority (and it's an actual majority not just very few vocal people), and the majority have decided that they dont like it and that they've had enough. Hence the new laws. Its the majority telling you to fuck off and that we dont want your cars around our town.

But the Act makes no mention of boi-racers. Or of any minority. It affects EVERYONE. Or, at any rate, everyone who has reason to ride or drive over the same stretch of road within an hour. It is , by this law, illegal for ANYONE to travel over the same stretch of road within an hour.

This morning, I set out for werk. Got a couple of kilometres down the road, and realised I had forgotten my cellphone. Turned round , went home , collected same, set out again. Thus, riding over the same stretch of road twice within the hour.

Which, in Christchurch will be illegal. And, there, if a cop had happened to be parked beside the road, and noticed "Oi, I saw that same bike only 10 minutes ago. Gotcha"; I could have suffered quite serious penalties, for the crime of returning home for my cell phone.

So do not claim that this law affects only minorities. It affects everyone. And please do not try to excuse it on the basis that "The police will only ennforce it against some people " - that just makes matters worse. The people that it will be enforced against will be anyone the police officer dislikes. A law that relies on the police only enforcing it on an arbitrary and personal basis is, by definition , tyrannical.

Personally, I will continue to protest this very bad legislation until it is legal for me to return home for my cell phone . Or to go about any of my other lawful occasions upon the public highway.

(BTW , I wonder what my employer would have said had I rang him up and told him that, in order to comply with the law, I was going to have to sit at home for an hour before setting out again?)

[onearmedbandit]

. It is , by this law, illegal for ANYONE to travel over the same stretch of road within an hour.

This morning, I set out for werk. Got a couple of kilometres down the road, and realised I had forgotten my cellphone. Turned round , went home , collected same, set out again. Thus, riding over the same stretch of road twice within the hour.

Which, in Christchurch will be illegal. And, there, if a cop had happened to be parked beside the road, and noticed "Oi, I saw that same bike only 10 minutes ago. Gotcha"; I could have suffered quite serious penalties, for the crime of returning home for my cell phone.



To put it simply for you Ixion, no it doesn't stop you from doing the above, you are simply choosing which facts you want to and ignoring the ones that don't support your sensationalism.

To quote an earlier post:


Cruising is defined in the Land Transport Act 1998 as driving repeatedly in the same direction over the same section of a road in a motor vehicle in a manner that—

(a) draws attention to the power or sound of the engine of the motor vehicle being driven; or

(b) creates a convoy that—

(i) is formed otherwise than in trade; and

(ii) impedes traffic flow

The proposed bylaw will also give the Council the power to set the period of time that must elapse between each time a driver drives on a specified road for the driver to avoid being regarded as cruising. Council is also consulting on, a proposal for this to be 60 minutes.


So in your situation, were you drawing attention to the power or sound of your vehicle? Were in in a convoy that impeded traffic flow?

I'm not in support of this bylaw, the current laws are enough to cover the problem. I'm also not in support of people fighting a battle by choosing which facts they want to listen to and conveniently ignoring the others.

[Ixion]

However, the Christchurch bylaw sets out different criteria to those specified in the statute. No mention at all in the bylaw (as far as I've seen published ) about "draws attention" or "impedes traffic". And the statute doesn't specify anything about "once an hour" .So Christchurch appear to be ignoring the qualifying constariants (such as they are) in the statute. Hence why I said "In Christchurch".

If someone can quote the actual bylaw, not the statute, that might help.

[onearmedbandit]

However, the Christchurch bylaw sets out different criteria to those specified in the statute. No mention at all in the bylaw (as far as I've seen published ) about "draws attention" or "impedes traffic". And the statute doesn't specify anything about "once an hour" .So Christchurch appear to be ignoring the qualifying constariants (such as they are) in the statute. Hence why I said "In Christchurch".

If someone can quote the actual bylaw, not the statute, that might help.


What, you mean something like a 'press release' from the council? Straight from the horses mouth sort of thing? The 'official' word?

Something that was say, in post #29 in this thread? (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/118441-1000-fine-for-cruising-boy-racers-affect-bikers-in-Christchurch-too?p=1129646536#post1129646536)

Here's the link (http://ccc.govt.nz/thecouncil/newsmedia/mediareleases/2010/february/201002113.aspx) to the Christchurch City Councils website. It hasn't actually been passed yet, so there is no link to the bylaw as such. You'll just have to settle with what the council have to say, if you can believe them of course.

[davereid]

I'm going to laugh my head off if it gets passed, with all the posts on here whining

"I'm not a boy racer but I got a $1000 ticket on my Ducati cos the policeman said I was drawing attention to its power"

Or "Me and a mate wuz riding slowly looking for the boozer.. we went passed it and had to go round the block cos CHCH is all one-way and I got a $1000 fine"

Or "The cop pulled me and me mate over for noise on our Harleys. I showed him the compliance sticker... so he gave me a $1000 fine anyway, cos Harleys draw attention to their sound"

[onearmedbandit]

I'm going to laugh my head off if it gets passed, with all the posts on here whining

"I'm not a boy racer but I got a $1000 ticket on my Ducati cos the policeman said I was drawing attention to its power"

Or "Me and a mate wuz riding slowly looking for the boozer.. we went passed it and had to go round the block cos CHCH is all one-way and I got a $1000 fine"

Or "The cop pulled me and me mate over for noise on our Harleys. I showed him the compliance sticker... so he gave me a $1000 fine anyway, cos Harleys draw attention to their sound"

I reckon we might need to set up an entire sub section of KB dedicated to it, such will be the results of the police pulling all and sundry over.

[Spuds1234]

Personally I doubt anyone on bikes will get stung with it unless they are acting like a twat, making heaps of noise around town and doing laps trying to bait the boy racers.

[Flip]

Why not simply push the Police to enforce the already perfectly adequate laws?

No because this law will help to keep the 'anti social' road users out of the town Fri, Sat and Sunday nights. It is policed by a video camera and will not add to the polices' work load, I feel that 'anti social' road users waste enough police time and divert them form doing much more important work.

[Flip]

Personally I doubt anyone on bikes will get stung with it unless they are acting like a twat, making heaps of noise around town and doing laps trying to bait the boy racers.

In this case they are 'anti social' road users (on two wheels) and diserve no better treatment than their 4 wheel cousins.

[Swoop]

Man not guilty of boy racer shooting.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10628173

[Flip]

Man not guilty of boy racer shooting.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10628173

Looked like his slug magically became a 22LR bullet after it hit the car?????

[avgas]

Good for him. He learnt that pointing a gun at another person is a bad thing.

[Spuds1234]

It is policed by a video camera and will not add to the polices' work load

Im assuming that they will have a stationary unmanned camera somewhere.

Wont this make the new law well unpolicable? Surely they would need some kind of human operator to note which cars were the noisey ones going past if there are more than 2 cars going past in the same direction on say Moorehouse Ave where there are 4 lanes?

Then again the council can probably afford it with all the money they are making off the bus lanes down papinui road at 3pm. I still cant believe people park there right under the sign. 5 minutes after leaving their car its gone. Towed away never to be seen.

[kwaka_crasher]

No because this law will help to keep the 'anti social' road users out of the town Fri, Sat and Sunday nights. It is policed by a video camera and will not add to the polices' work load, I feel that 'anti social' road users waste enough police time and divert them form doing much more important work.

Rather Orwellian wouldn't you agree?

[Spuds1234]

Rather Orwellian wouldn't you agree?

Thats a stretch seeing as most people in town support the bylaw.

After last nights ride Im pretty convinced that motorcyclists wont get done.

Not sure how many people here in this thread were on the Wednesday night ride but the smiles on the guy and his girl friends faces as they waited for us to get out of the carpark kinda said it all. They didnt mind waiting for all the bikes to clear out, they liked watching us leave on our trip from A to B to home.

[Flip]

Rather Orwellian wouldn't you agree?

No exactly the opposite. The new by-law has popular support here in Christchurch. It's democracy, the needs of the many.....

[onearmedbandit]

Maybe the concerned residents of our fair city should fight fire with fire. Imagine the 4 aves being taken over by hundreds of Hyundai Sonatas, Toyota Corollas, Nissan Sunny's etc driven by preferably old age pensioners, taking up all the car parks, mingling amongst the 'boy racers' lecturing them about dressing up to keep warm, breaking out thermos's of coffee, talking about the benefits of the latest 'depends' senior nappies. The 'boy racers' wouldn't know what hit them, and would high tail it out of town forever.

[kwaka_crasher]

Thats a stretch seeing as most people in town support the bylaw.


No exactly the opposite. The new by-law has popular support here in Christchurch. It's democracy, the needs of the many.....

So as long as it's popular it's good... yeah, that always works out well.

If you really can't see any long term repucussions for yourselves for some short term relief from what really only amounts to mere nuiscance, then I pity you. I truely do.

[Flip]

So as long as it's popular it's good... yeah, that always works out well.

If you really can't see any long term repucussions for yourselves for some short term relief from what really only amounts to mere nuiscance, then I pity you. I truely do.

Don't you think it is funny that Spuds and I both live in Christchurch and we both see the merits in this new bylaw, while you live in Auckland.

[avgas]

Maybe the concerned residents of our fair city should fight fire with fire. Imagine the 4 aves being taken over by hundreds of Hyundai Sonatas, Toyota Corollas, Nissan Sunny's etc driven by preferably old age pensioners, taking up all the car parks, mingling amongst the 'boy racers' lecturing them about dressing up to keep warm, breaking out thermos's of coffee, talking about the benefits of the latest 'depends' senior nappies. The 'boy racers' wouldn't know what hit them, and would high tail it out of town forever.
Didn't you hear - it easier to make a law than fix the problem.
Thats how we stopped child abuse - I mean have your heard of any kids being beat up lately?
Yep in good old NZ no one beats their kids, drives drunk or speeds here. We are the best country in the world.

[onearmedbandit]

We are the best country in the world.

And we've only got ourselves to blame for that.

[motor_mayhem]

Yeah whoever heard of some members of the police just using a law to net unintended targets to claim some more "road user tax"?

While I am very sure there are many selfless officers who are there to clean out the rabble and make the nation better and more respectable etc. I am also sure there are at least a few who are self serving and in it for the power trip. There is absolutely no way you could tell me otherwise, you hear about the bad ones in the Hazard county thread, and to see the evidence of the good ones you only need to step outside and see the country as it currently is which is actually really good for the most part.

Considering we know the characteristics of the problem group and how the offend others why can we not make a very specific law that targets them and only them rather than just anyone who happens to frequent the same area twice in one hour? They are a minority and disorganised so won't have the strength to complain and then they would have to argue why the stereo types are wrong which will be difficult when most of their members go out and prove it every weekend, and Joe Public won't get caught in the crossfire.


As always I am open to corrections

[Spuds1234]

Considering we know the characteristics of the problem group and how the offend others why can we not make a very specific law that targets them and only them rather than just anyone who happens to frequent the same area twice in one hour? They are a minority and disorganised so won't have the strength to complain and then they would have to argue why the stereo types are wrong which will be difficult when most of their members go out and prove it every weekend, and Joe Public won't get caught in the crossfire.

The bylaw that has been proposed does target a specific group.


Cruising is defined in the Land Transport Act 1998 as driving repeatedly in the same direction over the same section of a road in a motor vehicle in a manner that—

(a) draws attention to the power or sound of the engine of the motor vehicle being driven; or

(b) creates a convoy that—

(i) is formed otherwise than in trade; and

(ii) impedes traffic flow

The proposed bylaw will also give the Council the power to set the period of time that must elapse between each time a driver drives on a specified road for the driver to avoid being regarded as cruising. Council is also consulting on, a proposal for this to be 60 minutes.


Thats exactly what the boy racers do.

[Swoop]

Didn't you hear - it easier to make a law than fix the problem.
Thats how we stopped child abuse - I mean have your heard of any kids being beat up lately?

That is precisely how viscious dog attacks were eliminated. Micro-chipping of all dogs was brought into law and you don't hear of any attacks nowadays...:thud:

[SMOKEU]

Anyone who believes this law will work has the intelligence of a half baked potato.

[avgas]

And we've only got ourselves to blame for that.
Also if you say "New Zealand is wonderful" in front of the mirror 10 times, you will sleep with Helen Clarke in 7 days.

[avgas]

The bylaw that has been proposed does target a specific group.
Thats exactly what the boy racers do.
Among others.
Actually the more I read this law - the more I like it.
The following people can now fuck off as they are against the law
- Group riders (unless its your trade).
- People who like traffic jams

And true car enthusiasts, who form a group around your trade (auto-mechanics) - feel free to do what you want.
It clearly states "trade" - so long as you work with cars you can cruise all you want.
Your simply testing a car with support crew.

[onearmedbandit]

Anyone who believes this law will work has the intelligence of a half baked potato.

You are right, it won't work. On the other hand, my idea about the pensioners might just do the trick. With Barry Manilow or Cliff Richard pumping out at 120dB.



I wonder Ixion has gone, he was making such a stand about this and now appears very quiet on the subject. A little boy waits...

[kwaka_crasher]

Don't you think it is funny that Spuds and I both live in Christchurch and we both see the merits in this new bylaw, while you live in Auckland.

Not at all. I know a few people from Christchurch and they're a bit simple too! :clap: (j/k)

Do you think we've never had the same issues here that were resolved without oppressive bylaws?

[kwaka_crasher]

With Barry Manilow or Cliff Richard pumping out at 120dB.

Are you trying to make it appealing for me to move to Christchurch?

[Ixion]

You are right, it won't work. On the other hand, my idea about the pensioners might just do the trick. With Barry Manilow or Cliff Richard pumping out at 120dB.



I wonder Ixion has gone, he was making such a stand about this and now appears very quiet on the subject. A little boy waits...

There has been nothing worth commenting on posted.

[Flip]

Going free to a good home 700 Christchurch boy racers..... Go on you know you want them.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9nR7W-dhK0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxF7u09k4ak&feature=related

Yea I know about the media stretching the truth to sell press so I put this in....... From the mouths of babes....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTRvtRCkV4A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U7BdGaRyyY&feature=related

[SMOKEU]

Going free to a good home 700 Christchurch boy racers..... Go on you know you want them.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9nR7W-dhK0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxF7u09k4ak&feature=related

Yea I know about the media stretching the truth to sell press so I put this in....... From the mouths of babes....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTRvtRCkV4A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U7BdGaRyyY&feature=related

That shit makes me proud to be a part of the boy racer community. Skidz up!

[Patrick]

blah blah....... There is absolutely no way you could tell me otherwise, more blah blah.....

As always I am open to corrections

LOL......................... A Tui moment.....

[motor_mayhem]

LOL......................... A Tui moment.....

Touché

:shutup:

[avgas]

Going free to a good home 700 Christchurch boy racers..... Go on you know you want them.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9nR7W-dhK0&feature=related
Look man I will do what ever you want - just never quote "Sunday" again.

[monkey99]

Motor cyclists treating public highways as race tracks | Cops will pull over all the bikers now, thanks 4 that you Canterbury idiots! (disclaimer to all the persons that ride in Canterbury; Your not all idiots only the persons to have garnered the attention for road racing in high volume traffic zones) http://bit.ly/aXhwNZ (http://bit.ly/aXhwNZ)

[onearmedbandit]

Yeah saw that in this mornings edition of the Press. Silly bikers, Nth Canterbury police are well known for their heavy policing of the speed limits.

[R-Soul]

I didn't see the bit about being in convoy and excessive noise before.

I guess I'm just old enough to have watched NZ (and more so the UK and AUS), quietly morph from countries where its citizens had rights to countries where they don't.

Once upon a time there was a presumption of innocence, and an important principle that you don't get punished unless you are proven in court to have committed a crime.

We dumped that one with earlier boy racer legislation. Now you lose your licence and car if the policeman alleges you lost traction. No mucking around with the courts there !

In the UK you no longer have the right to remain silent, and a majority verdict in a trial will do !

I completely sympathise with the poor old residents of Christchurch, who quiet correctly have had enough. And I can't offer a better solution.

But a law like this could affect bikers on a group run, it could affect a group of motor-caravanners looking for a park, or a poker run car rally etc etc etc.

When we approve it by saying "yes we fit the definition sometimes, but they aren't looking for us, we are only on a poker run..." we have let our guard down, and may one day come to regret it.

I agreee - the littkle fuckers are annoying, but hey who was not young once right? My dad (and most older people) were probably not completely happy with the stunts I pulled too...
I guess their dads pay taxes and they are allowed to use the streets too.

Point is that laws that take away individual freedom are insiduous, and give unwarranted power to cops and lawmakers without checks and balances. In the worlds of Karl Marx "Absolute power corrupts absolutely".

I challenge anyone to show me a scenario where this result did not happen as a result of absolute power. From the Nazi's, to USA as the last superpower throwing its weight around, to Bob Mugabe. Its always a big FUCKUP.

If they are irritating, fine so what - deal with it and get over it. Like the mature people you propose to be. But coming up with "good 'ol boys rules" that are only intended to apply to some and for that reason are left open ended is not a solution. Because one day you are the hunter, and the next day you are the hunted.

[onearmedbandit]

Well what a mess this bylaw has created, innocent motorists being charged while out looking for a park for dinner, mothers being harassed by the 'filth' for going down to the dairy twice to get the bread they forgot on their first trip, the courts are over-flowing with examples of normal road users caught up in this mess, and the boy racers still wreck havoc every night through town.




Oh, wait, hang on. My bad, seem as though I had my facts mixed up. No abuse of the powers handed to the police, and I haven't seen anywhere near the level of traffic on weekend nights that we used to experience.

Give them time though, I'm sure the police are just waiting for the right time to start charging everyday citizens with cruising for a car park.

[ellipsis]

....even my Humber 80 got the "cooper s" muffler , ''mod", back when I was a young clown with a car...thank fuck it was slow and bounced off heavy objects....

[scumdog]

Well what a mess this bylaw has created, innocent motorists being charged while out looking for a park for dinner, mothers being harassed by the 'filth' for going down to the dairy twice to get the bread they forgot on their first trip, the courts are over-flowing with examples of normal road users caught up in this mess, and the boy racers still wreck havoc every night through town.




Oh, wait, hang on. My bad, seem as though I had my facts mixed up. No abuse of the powers handed to the police, and I haven't seen anywhere near the level of traffic on weekend nights that we used to experience.

Give them time though, I'm sure the police are just waiting for the right time to start charging everyday citizens with cruising for a car park.


Tuis moment F.???:devil2:

[onearmedbandit]

Oh you can bet if there had been any abuse of the new powers then this thread would've been resurrected a long time back. I just so happened to be driving past one of the signs erected around town and it reminded me how we haven't had any issues with this law. And I don't foresee any either.

[Mully Clown]

I've heard of the occasional pizza delivery guy being questioned about frequent visits to a street. That'll always happen until they bring back the roof-mount phones.

[onearmedbandit]

I've heard of the occasional pizza delivery guy being questioned about frequent visits to a street. That'll always happen until they bring back the roof-mount phones.

Half of those guys are boy racers themselves tho. They certainly drive like it anyway lol.

[miloking]

Alll they need is toll for Jap cars after 9.00 for drivers with first time licences, flashy chicks sitting way to close to the driver and an extra toll for bacdk seat passanger.

My campaign slogan should I run for mayor is 'FLASHY CAR ....... FLASHY CHICK........ FLASH YA WALLET.


Skyryder

Flashy car? Flashy chicks?
Sounds like somebody is jealous because they werent popular kid in high school...sucks that people like you are in politics too...