Speeding the next step

[Motig]

In a recent Ohio State Supreme Court decision, the armpit state of America further confirmed its status as the third worst territory in the United States by holding that a driver or motorcyclist can be convicted of speeding purely if it looked to a police officer that the motorist was going too fast.

The decision upholds a lower courts ruling, which held that a driver who challenged a speeding ticket could still be found guilty merely if the trooper stated the driver was “driving too fast” in their estimation.

In a 5-1 decision, Ohio’s highest court ruled that an officer’s visual estimation of speed is sufficient proof to convict a motorist of speeding, as long as the officer has been certified by a training academy, and has experience watching for speeders

[jasonzc]

SSShhhhhhhhh......

dont give the local popo's any ideas!!

Thats pretty fuckin redonculous if you ask me..

[Ixion]

Uh, that's exactly the same as this country and, yes, people have been convicted of speeding just because a cop thought they looked like they were going too fast

[SMOKEU]

The same thing basically happens here, if a cop without a radar gun sees someone driving at 200kmh in a 100 zone they're likely to get done for careless driving at the very least, even though it might be a long straight road with no other traffic around in good weather conditions.

[breakaway]

Uh, that's exactly the same as this country and, yes, people have been convicted of speeding just because a cop thought they looked like they were going too fast

But don't they usually withdraw the ticket at the very last moment once you threaten to go to court?

[MSTRS]

"Found guilty" is the operative part. If a cop issues a ticket, he's found you guilty already. What you do, determines whether you go to court, where you can still be convicted on just the cop's word.

[scumdog]

The same thing basically happens here, if a cop without a radar gun sees someone driving at 200kmh in a 100 zone they're likely to get done for careless driving at the very least, even though it might be a long straight road with no other traffic around in good weather conditions.

More likely dangerous than careless

As in 'dangerous to ANY person'

But I'd say it doesn't happen too often in the circumstances you mentioned.

[SMOKEU]

More likely dangerous than careless

As in 'dangerous to ANY person'

But I'd say it doesn't happen too often in the circumstances you mentioned.

Well, what's the difference between careless and dangerous driving?

[sosman]

Everybody fits into careless, taking yr eyes off the road for 1 sec to change the radio or get something out of the glove box...etc

[jaymzw]

Well, what's the difference between careless and dangerous driving?

Yeah, I always wondered this?

[scumdog]

Yeah, I always wondered this?

In basics: careless is 'driving in a manner a normal prudent motorsist would not' -or something like that, generally being unintentionally careless..

Dangerous is more a deliberate thing - but they overlap at times.

[schrodingers cat]

When that arrives here Gn250's and 125's are gunna be worth a mint! Buy now and avoid the rush

[DEATH_INC.]

SSShhhhhhhhh......

dont give the local popo's any ideas!!

Thats pretty fuckin redonculous if you ask me..
I got news for ya....I lost my licence once a while back on a cops 'estimated' speed....

[Scuba_Steve]

"Found guilty" is the operative part. If a cop issues a ticket, he's found you guilty already. What you do, determines whether you go to court, where you can still be convicted on just the cop's word.

but that right there brings a breach of the law in itself ONLY a court of law can find anyone guilty. Police are only there to accuse people NOT to judge them & to do so puts them in breach of NZ law.

[breakaway]

I got news for ya....I lost my licence once a while back on a cops 'estimated' speed....

Did you attempt to fight it or did you take it lying down? What were the circumstances surrounding this?

[MSTRS]

but that right there brings a breach of the law in itself ONLY a court of law can find anyone guilty. Police are only there to accuse people NOT to judge them & to do so puts them in breach of NZ law.

Semantics, really. A cop is not going to write you up if he doesn't think you're guilty.

[oldrider]

Uh, that's exactly the same as this country and, yes, people have been convicted of speeding just because a cop thought they looked like they were going too fast

Even worse, another (completely unqualified) motorist informs an officer that you have been speeding (*555) and he issues you with a ticket on the the strength of that information! :shifty:

Have read of this but don't know the outcome, the fact is bad enough on it's own! :sick:

[AllanB]

Pretty sure with the *555 you get a verbal or written slap on the wrist. Get a few of these and you are in trouble.

Years ago in North Canterbury a friend got a speeding ticket because 'your bike sounded fast - I could hear you winding it out in the hills'. He wrote in a got off as there was nothing to validate it. Fact was he would have been under the legal max in that part of the hills and he invited the reader of his letter to try to exceed the 100km limit through there.

I would have thought in the US-of-A that that 'law' would be a violation of one of their precious founding fathers rights.

[onearmedbandit]

I've been stopped 3 times for 'assumption of speeding, twice for a warning and once for a ticket (which resulted in loss of license).

[rastuscat]

Well, what's the difference between careless and dangerous driving?

Careless driving is when the standard of driving is not up to that expected of a careful and prudent driver. (as judged by JPs)

Dangerous driving is careless driving that is dangerous to a person or persons. Judged by a judge.

The next step up is reckless driving, which is dangerous driving where they can prove intent. Like, you fail to stop, turn your lights off and try to get away. That's reckless.

So there.

[SPman]

Careless driving is when the standard of driving is not up to that expected of a careful and prudent driver. (as judged by JPs)
.
Oooohhh - that's a scary one. You seen how some JP's drive...........

[Katman]

Oooohhh - that's a scary one. You seen how some JP's drive...........

That's nothing. Have you seen how some JP's reach their verdicts?

:blink:

[duckonin]

. A cop is not going to write you up if he doesn't think you're guilty.

I know a couple that would do just that....

[duckonin]

Would this be careless or dangerous..........A Female cop with siren going, two lanes of cars but the turning lane was empty, she came from behind these cars then went through a red light straight ahead using a turning lane with traffic coming from her left with a green light, her speed approx 60kph, it was a close call, she almost had herself 'NAILED' big time..

Place Hamilton city yesterday at the lights on the corner of Anglesea and Collingwood, she ran a red light in the most dangerous of fashion time approx 1.45pm

Was more than likely going for lunch with the boys...

[scumdog]

Would this be careless or dangerous..........A Female cop with siren going, two lanes of cars but the turning lane was empty, she came from behind these cars then went through a red light straight ahead using a turning lane with traffic coming from her left with a green light, her speed approx 60kph, it was a close call, she almost had herself 'NAILED' big time..

Place Hamilton city yesterday at the lights on the corner of Anglesea and Collingwood, she ran a red light in the most dangerous of fashion time approx 1.45pm

Was more than likely going for lunch with the boys...

Lunch run, therefore not dangerous....

[scumdog]

Would this be careless or dangerous..........A Female cop with siren going, two lanes of cars but the turning lane was empty, she came from behind these cars then went through a red light straight ahead using a turning lane with traffic coming from her left with a green light, her speed approx 60kph, it was a close call, she almost had herself 'NAILED' big time..

Place Hamilton city yesterday at the lights on the corner of Anglesea and Collingwood, she ran a red light in the most dangerous of fashion time approx 1.45pm

Was more than likely going for lunch with the boys...

Lunch run, therefore not dangerous....

[Scuba_Steve]

Oooohhh - that's a scary one. You seen how some JP's drive...........

they're not quite judges so does that make them not quite as dangerous???

"Lawyers and judges may be sticklers to the word of the law but it seems they are not quite so adherent to the rules of the road, topping a list of the top 10 most dangerous drivers by profession."

[duckonin]

Lunch run, therefore not dangerous....

HA HA The speed she was going she must of forgot breaky...

[miloking]

Careless driving is when the standard of driving is not up to that expected of a careful and prudent driver. (as judged by JPs)

Dangerous driving is careless driving that is dangerous to a person or persons. Judged by a judge.

The next step up is reckless driving, which is dangerous driving where they can prove intent. Like, you fail to stop, turn your lights off and try to get away. That's reckless.

So there.


So if i keep my lights on and try to get away, would it still be just dangerous driving? Or is "failing to stop" automaticaly reckless driving...

...it would be kind of unfair to call it "reckless" as i wouldnt be trying to get away recklessly...actualy i would try to get away as safely as possible :D

[miloking]

I've been stopped 3 times for 'assumption of speeding, twice for a warning and once for a ticket (which resulted in loss of license).

Did they impound the bike? Or let you push it home?

[rastuscat]

So if i keep my lights on and try to get away, would it still be just dangerous driving? Or is "failing to stop" automaticaly reckless driving...

...it would be kind of unfair to call it "reckless" as i wouldnt be trying to get away recklessly...actualy i would try to get away as safely as possible :D

Reckless and dangerous driving are covered by the same section of the Land Transport Act, and have exactly the same penalty. Cops only use the reckless charge for the most serious cases, as it is far harder to prove.

Most traffic charges have no requirement to prove mens rea, being latin for intention. Reckless does, but dangerous doesn't.

Basically, dangerous is fairly easy to prove.

However, there is a mandatory 6 months disqualification for dangerous (and reckless), and judges are often reluctant to take someones license away for 6 months unless the charge is fairly legit. Often, a judge will drop a charge of dangerous to one of careless in order to impose a shorter period of disqualification.

All from my experience, not from a book of rules.

So there.

[scumdog]

So if i keep my lights on and try to get away, would it still be just dangerous driving? Or is "failing to stop" automaticaly reckless driving...

...it would be kind of unfair to call it "reckless" as i wouldnt be trying to get away recklessly...actualy i would try to get away as safely as possible :D

Oh, the average Jow might get off altogether but I'm sure you would be able to talk it all the way up to reckless...:whistle:

[red mermaid]

Yes, but would you lock MK up for Reckless? :innocent::yes:

[miloking]

Reckless and dangerous driving are covered by the same section of the Land Transport Act, and have exactly the same penalty. Cops only use the reckless charge for the most serious cases, as it is far harder to prove.

Most traffic charges have no requirement to prove mens rea, being latin for intention. Reckless does, but dangerous doesn't.

Basically, dangerous is fairly easy to prove.

However, there is a mandatory 6 months disqualification for dangerous (and reckless), and judges are often reluctant to take someones license away for 6 months unless the charge is fairly legit. Often, a judge will drop a charge of dangerous to one of careless in order to impose a shorter period of disqualification.

All from my experience, not from a book of rules.

So there.

Ok thanks for the clarification, it all makes sense now ...since i dont have any first hand experience with this and would like to keep it that way

[miloking]

Oh, the average Jow might get off altogether but I'm sure you would be able to talk it all the way up to reckless...:whistle:

Who said there would be any chance for talking, by the time your lovely SV6 gets properly moving...i would be at home sipping my beer and having good laugh watching news report and "police looking for rider on black motorcycle" :D

[scumdog]

Who said there would be any chance for talking, by the time your lovely SV6 gets properly moving...i would be at home sipping my beer and having good laugh watching news report and "police looking for rider on black motorcycle" :D

I was thinking more of the visit to you in hospital after you binned.

Bugger chasing you...

[miloking]

I was thinking more of the visit to you in hospital after you binned.

Bugger chasing you...

Well i would be pretty safe until your "buddies" would call off the chase....everybody always bins it about "5" seconds after that :D

[scumdog]

Well i would be pretty safe until your "buddies" would call off the chase....everybody always bins it about "5" seconds after that :D

So THEY say.

But we know they binned hours ago and needed somebody else to blame (A phenomina of the 21st century - "it's somebody elses fault")

[SMOKEU]

I was thinking more of the visit to you in hospital after you binned.

Bugger chasing you...

With all these politically correct "If there is any unjustified risk to members of the public you must abandon pursuit immediately, do you acknowledge?", that's what the good old "accidental U turn in front of a motorcyclist" trick was invented for, didn't you know that?

[Max Preload]

Well, what's the difference between careless and dangerous driving?

Whether or not the donuts were fresh that day.

[onearmedbandit]

Did they impound the bike? Or let you push it home?

Back in the day when I was young, dumb and riding in the sun, I had a few run-ins that meant my license and I had a long distance relationship. However I was lucky enough to never have had my bike impounded and I always got a lift home in a Commodore. Now I'm just more careful on the road, as the last judge back in '05 suggested.

[madbikeboy]

In basics: careless is 'driving in a manner a normal prudent motorsist would not' -or something like that, generally being unintentionally careless..

Dangerous is more a deliberate thing - but they overlap at times.

So, given that no normal prudent motorist would actually ride one of those newfangled motor-siccles, does riding therefore count as careless? Or accidentally lifting the front wheel for a kilometer or two, does that count as careless? What about thinking impure thoughts while riding past a hot chick on a Vespa who is carrying a latte and a cell phone in both hands while you're not wearing ATGATT? Or waving? I mean, you need to lift your hand from the bar to wave, right? Is that careless...?

I was singing in my head this morning as I drove, (Sigh, I know); since men can't multi-task, surely this act was also irresponsible and careless?

[miloking]

Back in the day when I was young, dumb and riding in the sun, I had a few run-ins that meant my license and I had a long distance relationship. However I was lucky enough to never have had my bike impounded and I always got a lift home in a Commodore. Now I'm just more careful on the road, as the last judge back in '05 suggested.

Well last time i had "run in" with police was about 6 years ago before i had a motorcycle licence at all (young and stupid too)...and the kind policeman rode my GSF400 to the station (luckily my helmet fit ok) while his buddy gave me lift (i got to ride in a front seat) but there was no small talk...as he was pretty angry with me for "taking too long" to "pull over" (um about 2 minutes,lol)...since then i decided i wont do runner ever or until i get a faster bike.
In the end those two were the nicest cops i've met....since the whole thing just cost me $400 and no demerits for not having a licence and my mate with full had to go and pick up the bike for me.
(since then getting learners and restricted ended up costing me way more as breaches of individual licence conditions used to be $400 each...and fuck having a "L"-ooser plate)

[R-Soul]

since men can't multi-task, surely this act was also irresponsible and careless?

I would be typing a smart reply to this right now, but I am chewing gum...

[R-Soul]

But don't they usually withdraw the ticket at the very last moment once you threaten to go to court?

They would have to really, unless tehy wanted to waste state money. In order to be convicted of an offence, you have to be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I dont see any judge taking a cops word for it without reasonable doubt.

Any decent lawyer would just try and undermine the cops credibility a bit by asking a few questions, showing a few videos, etc. no one should ever actually be convicted this way.

[PirateJafa]

They would have to really, unless tehy wanted to waste state money. In order to be convicted of an offence, you have to be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I dont see any judge taking a cops word for it without reasonable doubt.

Any decent lawyer would just try and undermine the cops credibility a bit by asking a few questions, showing a few videos, etc. no one should ever actually be convicted this way.

I see no reason why this would be any different to a "normal" speeding ticket.

As it currently stands, there is no "evidence" that you were speeding, even if they have/use a radar gun. They do not even "have" to show you the readout on the radar gun. And if they do, for all you know, that reading could have been sitting on it for the last hour.

The judges already consider the word of a policeman to be nigh upon gospel in comparison to a dirty, baby-killing, jew-hating speeder, so I see no reason why they wouldn't listen there too.

[scumdog]

I see no reason why this would be any different to a "normal" speeding ticket.

As it currently stands, there is no "evidence" that you were speeding, even if they have/use a radar gun. They do not even "have" to show you the readout on the radar gun. And if they do, for all you know, that reading could have been sitting on it for the last hour.

The judges already consider the word of a policeman to be nigh upon gospel in comparison to a dirty, baby-killing, jew-hating speeder, so I see no reason why they wouldn't listen there too.

Wow, my good luck being a cop eh!!:clap::2thumbsup

[DEATH_INC.]

Did you attempt to fight it or did you take it lying down? What were the circumstances surrounding this?
It's a very long and sad story, and yes I did fight it in court but the cop lied his ass off. It was his word against mine, and coz he was a cop with XX years experience and I was just a criminal on a bike, he won.