While the nation languishes in a recession, traffic tickets are BIG business [Archive]

BIG DOUG

20th December 2010, 18:14

Have to agree just got a ticket coming home ,the cop was in the layby before silverstream I glanced at my speedo and saw 105 then like a dick he tried to pull me up in the road works so I keeped going at 50kph as the rest of the traffic in front pulled away from me and as it was unsafe to pull over, then he got me to pull over in the lane for the traffic merging on to the motorway from riverstone tce,so I storm up to his car and said whats the problem "you where doing 115kph" I told him to fuck off as my speedo said 105, licence etc blah blah then he comes back and tell's me I'm on 80 points and this will push me to a 100 to which I replied only when I pay it and I get 40 off at the end of feb so I have 28 days to pay then the reminder will come which will give me another 28 days which by then I'll have 60 points plus this 20 status quo yea I can play the game to.

sil3nt

20th December 2010, 18:14

Although from the US, still seems totally relevent here...
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/baxter126.html

And yeah, I just donated some last weekend for the "crime" of doin` 116kph on a straight rural road, `cos they were "targeting motorcycles and blah, blah, blah..." :shit::shit:I think they would be targeting anyone doing 116. And the road couldn't have been that rural if cops were on it!

BoristheBiter

20th December 2010, 18:20

Although from the US, still seems totally relevent here...
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/baxter126.html

And yeah, I just donated some last weekend for the "crime" of doin` 116kph on a straight rural road, `cos they were "targeting motorcycles and blah, blah, blah..." :shit::shit:

Whats the speed limit on that bit of road???
Hang on i can hear the wahmbalance coming

SMOKEU

20th December 2010, 19:14

And yeah, I just donated some last weekend for the "crime" of doin` 116kph on a straight rural road, `cos they were "targeting motorcycles and blah, blah, blah..." :shit::shit:

It's your fault for stopping for the officer, assuming you were riding your GSXR1000 at the time of the alleged offence.

scumdog

20th December 2010, 19:39

It's your fault for stopping for the officer, assuming you were riding your GSXR1000 at the time of the alleged offence.

Ah, a predictable line of thought from SMOKEU....<_<

SMOKEU

20th December 2010, 19:51

Ah, a predictable line of thought from SMOKEU....<_<

I like to tell it how it is.

rastuscat

20th December 2010, 19:59

Here we go again.

Don't want to get a ticket? Don't break the law.

Before you start bleating about getting caught, think about the number of times you have broken the rules and not been caught.

So there.

Donuts are us.

Stormer

20th December 2010, 20:02

It's your fault for stopping for the officer, assuming you were riding your GSXR1000 at the time of the alleged offence.

Ha!
Yeah, well I guess I ain`t a criminal...oh wait, yes I am!
It was near the end of a good ride, and let my guard down for a moment going over the brow of a bridge.
Beeeeeeep...and snapped.
The cop was actually quite a good sort, almost apologetic about offering the current rider training thing.
Whatever, the fines paid and lessons learnt.

Stormer

20th December 2010, 20:08

Plenty of shit slung over my speeding crime, but none about the traffic tickets article.
Guess the article must have some truth then huh?

SMOKEU

20th December 2010, 20:10

Plenty of shit slung over my speeding crime, but none about the traffic tickets article.
Guess the article must have some truth then huh?

People are too pussy to do anything against the government in this country. They let the government walk all over them.

schrodingers cat

20th December 2010, 20:17

Ah, a predictable line of thought from SMOKEU....<_<

Not capable of thought. Lower life forms simply react

MSTRS

21st December 2010, 08:12

Plenty of shit slung over my speeding crime, but none about the traffic tickets article.
Guess the article must have some truth then huh?

I'll do it!!
If issuing tickets for traffic violations worked to make motoring safer, why do we have things like TC, ABS, airbags, helmets, etc? And when it comes to speed limits, I'm convinced that a fair portion of them are there simply to provide easy ticketing opportunities...
:shit::innocent:

rastuscat

21st December 2010, 08:25

I'll do it!!
If issuing tickets for traffic violations worked to make motoring safer, why do we have things like TC, ABS, airbags, helmets, etc?

Because no single thing e.g. the vehicle design improvements you mention, will solve every road safety problem.

MSTRS

21st December 2010, 08:30

ka-chomp!!!

rastuscat

21st December 2010, 08:40

ka-chomp!!!

I believe you meant ka ching.

MSTRS

21st December 2010, 08:44

That's the trouble with you rozzers. You always reckon you know what we, the public, mean.
Do you learn that at cop school? Or is it an entry requisite?
:facepalm:

firefighter

21st December 2010, 08:57

convinced that a fair portion of them are there simply to provide easy ticketing opportunities...
:shit::innocent:

I hear what you're saying, cars these days with capable drivers can quite safely negotiate the roads quicker safely.

However there needs to be limits to limit the effects of accidents from inattentive, incompetent drivers/riders, who are unable to or refuse to adjust their driving to the conditions.
It's the only real way to keep some sort of control on the situation and really, is probably the fairest way to do it. For every driver and rider that genuinely could safely travel a bit quicker, and do adjust their speed to the conditions there are another 20 that don't.

The strategies are often questionable, but those strategies are'nt created by the guys ordered to carry them out.

For the record the last crash I went to was a good road handling vehicle, travelling too fast. Driver died. The one before was on it's roof after rear ending a truck, in-attention. Food for thought.

rastuscat

21st December 2010, 09:02

Hey, I have yet another solution to the alleged revenue collection issue.

Tickets are triggered by the person actually doing the thing the ticket is for.

So (and this is a big SO), if that person were to not actually do the thing, they wouldn't get a ticket.

(Stunned silence. Tumbleweeds rolling along.)

Yes, there it is in white and black. Don't get "revenue collected" by not doing the infringement. Deprive us nasty Popos and Rozzers of the ability to collect your revenue.

Accept responsibility instead of directing blame, that way you regain control.

Wow, radical.

Read the attachment. It'll give you a smile. We had him on video breaking the traffic light rule. He fabricated a story. If he'd just stopped for the traffic light it wouldn't have all happened.

Great letter tho.

cromagnon

21st December 2010, 09:07

Now they dont want to let you pass either

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4478952/Officials-to-close-passing-lanes

Edbear

21st December 2010, 09:12

I hear what you're saying, cars these days with capable drivers can quite safely negotiate the roads quicker safely.

However there needs to be limits to limit the effects of accidents from inattentive, incompetent drivers/riders, who are unable to or refuse to adjust their driving to the conditions.
It's the only real way to keep some sort of control on the situation and really, is probably the fairest way to do it. For every driver and rider that genuinely could safely travel a bit quicker, and do adjust their speed to the conditions there are another 20 that don't.The strategies are often questionable, but those strategies are'nt created by the guys ordered to carry them out.

For the record the last crash I went to was a good road handling vehicle, travelling too fast. Driver died. The one before was on it's roof after rear ending a truck, in-attention. Food for thought.

Only 20..!!!??? :shit:

firefighter

21st December 2010, 09:12

Yes, there it is in white and black. Don't get "revenue collected" by not doing the infringement. Deprive us nasty Popos and Rozzers of the ability to collect your revenue.

Accept responsibility instead of directing blame, that way you regain control

Normally i'd agree with you, but you have to admit that some of your colleagues (i'm assuming) can be real arseholes.

I'm sure you've tried to pass someone and had them speed up, therefore putting you over the threshold if you decide to try and continue to pass.

There certainly are times when those of us who genuinely do make a concious effort to ride within the constraints of the law do safely break them, and will slow down quickly, yet still get pinged for it. There is nothing safe about riding on the wrong side of the road for 300m trying to pass someone, when you could have done so quickly and safely speeding up to the 'instant ticket' speed of 111. It's a bit slack that some police don't take simple common sense things like this into consideration and will ticket you even though it was obvious that it was only for a few seconds to get yourself around a rolling hazard.

I know these fucks are few and far between, but it's hard to back that up. I have never been pulled over and given a ticket, but I have been in a car when that has happened. Pretty non-proactive policing really-a warning would have been over the top.

For the most part I agree with what you are saying and totally support the line; "instead of fuck the police, how about you stop breaking the law!", but obviously sometimes the law gets taken a little too literally, and not really policed in the way it was intended when written (you know what I mean here).

MSTRS

21st December 2010, 09:13

firefighter

21st December 2010, 09:15

Now they dont want to let you pass either

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4478952/Officials-to-close-passing-lanes

Good, N.Z drivers are like white men dancing when it comes to merging.

They'd rather try and show off their gorilla skills, drag their fists and mouth breathe than actually try and merge with courtesy.

Katman

21st December 2010, 09:16

People are too pussy to do anything against the government in this country. They let the government walk all over them.

Is that why you left South Africa?

rastuscat

21st December 2010, 09:19

Neither story proves anything. His fear of being rear ended was not grounds for continuing, only how close he was to the yellow at the time it changed. The law only says you must stop for a yellow IF it is safe to do so.

Video is great. He went through the light as it turned red. It was a 4 second yellow phase, so he was easily 40 metres back at 40km/h, and had heaps of time to stop safely.

Better yet, there was no vehicle behind him at all. Imagine if we had no video, and he told his story to the court. We would have been telling the court that there was no car behind him, and the JP would have had to either believe him or me. If the JP had believed me (I was right, the video proves it), the numpty would have been on some internet site bleating about those revenue collecting, corrupt, lying Popos.

It's the world I live in.

bogan

21st December 2010, 09:35

Hey, I have yet another solution to the alleged revenue collection issue.

Tickets are triggered by the person actually doing the thing the ticket is for.

So (and this is a big SO), if that person were to not actually do the thing, they wouldn't get a ticket.

yes masters, baaahhh. And I spose the best way for women not to get raped is make themselves look ugly, and to not get domestic abused is to shut up?

BoristheBiter

21st December 2010, 09:38

yes masters, baaahhh. And I spose the best way for women not to get raped is make themselves look ugly, and to not get domestic abused is to shut up?

So whats your point??

MSTRS

21st December 2010, 09:38

Video is great.

I don't suppose it was doctored...

Truth is sometimes subjective, but if anyone makes a claim that x was the case and can prove it was so, and a counter-claim cannot prove otherwise, then that's that.
Too often we hear of, or experience first hand, a cop telling fibs when it comes to traffic matters. He can't prove what he says is true, and the traffic offender, who has a different story, can't either. The cop is believed. Whilst a cop and his word should be able to be trusted, the situation is wide open to abuse. That is wrong.

bogan

21st December 2010, 09:42

I don't suppose it was doctored...

Truth is sometimes subjective, but if anyone makes a claim that x was the case and can prove it was so, and a counter-claim cannot prove otherwise, then that's that.
Too often we hear of, or experience first hand, a cop telling fibs when it comes to traffic matters. He can't prove what he says is true, and the traffic offender, who has a different story, can't either. The cop is believed. Whilst a cop and his word should be able to be trusted, the situation is wide open to abuse. That is wrong.

I still don't see why hp cars don't have dashcams...

Buyasta

21st December 2010, 09:42

yes masters, baaahhh. And I spose the best way for women not to get raped is make themselves look ugly, and to not get domestic abused is to shut up?

Er, wouldn't that analogy work better if he was blaming the government for creating the road?

If his argument is that if you don't want to be done for speeding you shouldn't speed, that's like saying that if you don't want to be prosecuted for rape, you shouldn't rape someone, or if you don't want to be prosecuted for domestic abuse, you probably shouldn't beat your partner/kids, which all seems fair enough to me.

bogan

21st December 2010, 09:50

Er, wouldn't that analogy work better if he was blaming the government for creating the road?

If his argument is that if you don't want to be done for speeding you shouldn't speed, that's like saying that if you don't want to be prosecuted for rape, you shouldn't rape someone, or if you don't want to be prosecuted for domestic abuse, you probably shouldn't beat your partner/kids, which all seems fair enough to me.

the analogy was to show that there are two sides to the conflict, either one of which could stop a ticket being given. The biker could not do anything wrong (not speed dangerously, same as not abusing), or the biker could cower to the demands (not go over 100, same as shutting up). The idea being that the point of tickets are to keep roads safe, it is possible to speed safely, and if the biker is given a ticket while riding safely, you could say they are the victim.

BoristheBiter

21st December 2010, 11:36

the analogy was to show that there are two sides to the conflict, either one of which could stop a ticket being given. The biker could not do anything wrong (not speed dangerously, same as not abusing), or the biker could cower to the demands (not go over 100, same as shutting up). The idea being that the point of tickets are to keep roads safe, it is possible to speed safely, and if the biker is given a ticket while riding safely, you could say they are the victim.

No they are the offender, They are breaking the law, to say otherwise is like saying the rapist is the victim.

The analogy you have used is completely wrong as you have the control to speed or not, a girl walking down the street has no control over if someone is going to try and rape them, other than putting up a fight.

There are not two sides to the conflict, you either go over the speed limit or you don't.

MSTRS

21st December 2010, 11:44

Perhaps the problem is that we don't believe that victimless crimes are 'proper' crimes.
Like 116kph on a straight, clear road...

bogan

21st December 2010, 11:46

No they are the offender, They are breaking the law, to say otherwise is like saying the rapist is the victim.

The analogy you have used is completely wrong as you have the control to speed or not, a girl walking down the street has no control over if someone is going to try and rape them, other than putting up a fight.

There are not two sides to the conflict, you either go over the speed limit or you don't.

ok it was a poor analogy, but one that made you think right?

anyway, think about whose law it is, and what it is designed to do

BoristheBiter

21st December 2010, 12:56

ok it was a poor analogy, but one that made you think right?

anyway, think about whose law it is, and what it is designed to do

It only made me think your just as bad as me at analogies.
and
A)The law of this country.
B) Stop you from speeding.

bogan

21st December 2010, 13:35

It only made me think your just as bad as me at analogies.
and
A)The law of this country.
B) Stop you from speeding.

<img src="http://i38.tinypic.com/2mxmmft.jpg" />

we need to go, deeper.

Swoop

21st December 2010, 13:36

Now they dont want to let you pass either

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4478952/Officials-to-close-passing-lanes
Excellent.

"Passing lanes" are a complete disaster on any long weekend, simply because the morons can't merge back together after "having" to get past the car in front.

Absolutely no issues whatsoever if on a bike!:yes::scooter:

BoristheBiter

21st December 2010, 13:44

<img src="http://i38.tinypic.com/2mxmmft.jpg" />

we need to go, deeper.

no i think we should just leave it there:innocent:

BoristheBiter

21st December 2010, 13:49

Excellent.

"Passing lanes" are a complete disaster on any long weekend, simply because the morons can't merge back together after "having" to get past the car in front.

Absolutely no issues whatsoever if on a bike!:yes::scooter:

They used to do it north of Auckland years ago, they might still do but i use sh16.
It is the most frustrating thing to come across other than the slow drivers.

I see why they do it, it just doesn't have the required effect. it just make for more frustration.

st00ji

21st December 2010, 14:04

Before you start bleating about getting caught, think about the number of times you have broken the rules and not been caught.

this. everyone knows the potential cost of speeding etc. i've never been ticketed for something i didnt do.

stop crying imo

Swoop

21st December 2010, 14:04

I see why they do it, it just doesn't have the required effect. it just make for more frustration.
Having been stuck in the car (gah! Thud!) coming back at the end of a long weekend, the closure of the passing lanes proved a significant enhancement to traffic flow. Traffic was slower, but it was moving! Most unlike several sets of lanes that did not have the extra lane closed and came to a complete stop for a short time, so idiots could "merge" back together.

It gets my vote!

gammaguy

21st December 2010, 14:10

People are too pussy to do anything against the government in this country. They let the government walk all over them.

best comment youve made since ages

thats precisely why i emigrated:yes:

Indiana_Jones

21st December 2010, 14:21

People are too pussy to do anything against the government in this country. They let the government walk all over them.

Meet you at parliament in 2 days, you bring the TNT...

-Indy

Scuba_Steve

21st December 2010, 14:40

Meet you at parliament in 2 days, you bring the TNT...

-Indy

And make sure you do it right too, (still don't get why we celebrate someone who failed at blowing up parliament)

firefighter

21st December 2010, 14:44

I still don't see why hp cars don't have dashcams...

$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Hoon

21st December 2010, 14:46

I'm all for more traffic tickets. Hell I only get one every few years so no skin off my back. We need more Police and I couldn't ask for a better scheme where the Police and Govt are funded by dumbarses that can't obey the law - better them than me. The Police make it their business to tax stupid people and business is good!

God forbid that these benefactors out there actually wise up and start obeying the law.

Bassmatt

21st December 2010, 14:48

best comment youve made since ages

thats precisely why i emigrated:yes:

To Singapore!!?:rofl::rofl:

red mermaid

21st December 2010, 17:24

I still don't see why hp cars don't have dashcams...

Probably a couple of reasons;
1. The Police budget has taken a hit of at least $50 million in the last couple of years.

2. Many years ago most police statements were taken in writing and defence lawyers, acting for their poor innocent clients, used to attack police officers claiming they beat their poor innocent clients to obtain statements.
So, police went to recording statements via video, and the lawyers were proven wrong and their poor innocent clients were proven to be liars and guilty.
Now defence lawyers advise their poor innocent clients against going on video!

So if Highway Patrol cars got video, from past experience, it is highly probable that poor innocent offenders will be found to be liars and guilty.

scumdog

21st December 2010, 17:31

To Singapore!!?:rofl::rofl:

the land of unlimited personal freedom eh.....<_<:rolleyes:

bogan

21st December 2010, 17:37

So if Highway Patrol cars got video, from past experience, it is highly probable that poor innocent offenders will be found to be liars and guilty.

sounds like a good reason to me, just get some second hand ones from the states, be cheap as, cut the donut budget by a few percent should cover it :innocent:

rastuscat

21st December 2010, 18:50

cut the donut budget by a few percent should cover it

DON'T YOU THREATEN ME !!!!!!!!:shit::shit::shit:

MSTRS

22nd December 2010, 08:19

So if Highway Patrol cars got video, from past experience, it is highly probable that poor innocent offenders will be found to be liars and guilty.

And sometimes prove the cop was a lying sack of ... too.

SPman

22nd December 2010, 14:24

I know these fucks are few and far between, Not that few and far between, unfortunately!

For the most part I agree with what you are saying and totally support the line; "instead of fuck the police, how about you stop breaking the law!", but obviously sometimes the law gets taken a little too literally, and not really policed in the way it was intended when written (you know what I mean here).

A little more of the "Apply the intent, not the letter of the law" - I think it's called discretion - not in big favour these days. To be able to apply discretion, you normally need skill, experience and a non egocentric personality - also not that common these days. Also, realistic speed limits would help, not limits set in the days when an Austin 1100 was family transport.......

firefighter

22nd December 2010, 15:04

A little more of the "Apply the intent, not the letter of the law" - I think it's called discretion - not in big favour these days. To be able to apply discretion, you normally need skill, experience and a non egocentric personality - also not that common these days. Also, realistic speed limits would help, not limits set in the days when an Austin 1100 was family transport.......

They actually have changed since then.......

N.Zers have'nt learnt to travel at the current limits without accidents caused by the same old things, until this happens all that will happen is greater damage and more deaths.

I know it's not in support of what you are saying, so you may not want to hear it but unfortunately that is the reality. The last crash I went to was a car on it's roof after hitting the back of a truck, and that was only an 80km area. Imagine if the limits were lifted, he'd have killed his passenger instead of her being released the next day, I don't doubt that for a second. That's experience talking too remember so please don't try and find holes in it, that is the facts of it.

As I said earlier, they are in place to manage the people that don't adjust their speed, stop paying attention (this will happen at any speed) and so on.

Unfortunately no matter how safe you make a vehicle and how well you make it handle, there will still be those people out there, so it's just not a realistic or viable option.

I completely know what you are saying, there are so many roads that could have a 10km increase in the limits, and i've been cursing the speed limit many a time too. I think some motor/expressway sections etc could do with an increase quite safely. Immediately I think of the expressway in Tauranga that's only 80k.......that grinds my gears!

scumdog

22nd December 2010, 15:43

And sometimes prove the cop was a lying sack of ... too.

Great.

At least it would then be 'proof'.

Instead of the usual whinge-fest Chinese whisper urban myth KB type allegation.....

red mermaid

22nd December 2010, 16:21

You got that right SD.

Too many urban myths spread by plonkers who know nothing about what they are talking about.

Great.

At least it would then be 'proof'.

Instead of the usual whinge-fest Chinese whisper urban myth KB type allegation.....

gammaguy

22nd December 2010, 16:38

To Singapore!!?:rofl::rofl:

yup

i dont mind an overbearing government that knows what it is doing,unlike NZ where there is corruption and incompetence,but still they think they know better than anyone else.

check the stats on Singapore,low crime, really good economic growth ,no or little drug or alcohol abuse.

they are doing something right here:yes:

BoristheBiter

22nd December 2010, 16:58

You got that right SD.

Too many urban myths spread by plonkers who know nothing about what they are talking about.

I thought thats what KB was all about :facepalm:

Bassmatt

22nd December 2010, 17:05

yup

i dont mind an overbearing government that knows what it is doing,unlike NZ where there is corruption and incompetence,but still they think they know better than anyone else.

check the stats on Singapore,low crime, really good economic growth ,no or little drug or alcohol abuse.

they are doing something right here:yes:

NZ and Singapore are both ranked Number 1 for lack of corruption so no difference there.
Whatever floats your boat mate. I certainly wouldn't live in a country where you may be a criminal if you dont flush the toilet.
Fear is a great method of controlling people. Rattan anyone?

gammaguy

22nd December 2010, 17:13

NZ and Singapore are both ranked Number 1 for lack of corruption so no difference there.
Whatever floats your boat mate. I certainly wouldn't live in a country where you may be a criminal if you dont flush the toilet.
Fear is a great method of controlling people. Rattan anyone?

you live in your paradise

i will live in mine

deal:yes:

jonbuoy

22nd December 2010, 21:55

Perhaps the problem is that we don't believe that victimless crimes are 'proper' crimes.
Like 116kph on a straight, clear road...

And doing 95 and driving too close to the car in front of you, daydreaming along at 80 not looking in your mirrors/using indicators is OK - its not breaking the law?? Anyone know how many people get ticketed for tailgating, poor lane discipline or failure to use indicators versus the number charged with speeding? I agree with a strict 50KPH in built up areas but on open roads?

miloking

22nd December 2010, 22:04