2 speeding tickets in 2 minutes

[mattd]

ok i was just wondering about a couple of speeding tickets i got this morn. apperently the cop was following me down 1 road onto another with his lights on, i couldnt really see him in my mirrors, then he put his siren on just as i was turning into another street (stupid time for him to distract me with that mid-corner). he then proceeded to issue 2 tickets becuase it was 2 different roads. whats with that? i would think it would be the same offence = 1 ticket? does this sound right to u guys?

[Odin]

It dosent sound right to me but then again that dosen't meen it isen't. You must have really stepped on that guy's toe's ! was it so early that he hden't had a cup of coffee ?

[Oakie]

Sounds screwy to me.
The next step along that track would be to say that you were speeding along the first 10 metres of the road .. so a ticket for that ... along the second 10 metres so a ticket for that ... along the third 10 metres so another ticket for that... and so on.
I guess he's saying you broke the law ... you came back within the law ... and then you broke the law again. Still ... if you go before court for having a punch up you don't get fined for each punch do you?
I'd dispute it for sure.

[madboy]

Sounds like someone eager to do their bit for increasing the public opinion of the police. One ticket, fair enough, but two? Wanker.

[Lou Girardin]

Good to see a new approach to filling the quota. Tosser. :Police:
It was one speed check so there should be one ticket. Unless there were two different speed zones. It doesn't even sound like he had a speed check in the second road if he hit the lights and flashers mid-corner.
Query it at the Infringement bureau, ask them if they'd like Fair Go informed.
And they wonder why they're disliked.

[onearmedbandit]

Fucking retarded. Good way to boost the public image. Even if it is technically correct, thats just stupid.

[Biff]

Sounds like this ahole hasn't had his leg over recently.

Let's hope one our resident cops stops by here shortly for some advice.
The only advice I can give is don't pay either ticket for the time being. Write a letter stating telling the authorties exactly what happened.

[mattd]

yeah im sweet with paying the speeding ticket, just not 2. he got me at 68 on the second rd but did not get a speed on the first, so i got to go to court for that one now. got an appointment with a lawyer next wensday. so we'll see what he says about the situation.

[mattd]

also i called the Infringement bureau, the opperater was good but i dont think she was that well informed so she transfered me to an officer who was rude and sounded very uniterested in answering my inquiry, so i just hung up on the prick, no use wasting my time on him.

[spudchucka]

I'm of two minds.

1: There are two separate offences if they occurred at different times and at different places, (roads). In that respect I believe that the issuing of two tickets would be justifiable.

2: In the interest of fairness I think this sucks. This IS the sort of shit that gives Lou and his buddies something to berate us over. On the face of it the cop has been unreasonable, thats my opinion, other cops may think otherwise.

Your options really are as follows;

1: Pay up and take it on the chin.

2: Write a detailed and reasoned letter to the Infringment Buraeu explaining the circumstances, highlighting the unreasonable nature of the second ticket. Be professional, don't be abusive or sarcastic.

3: Don't pay and defend both tickets in Court. You may be lucky and find a Judge / JP that has some sympathy for your plight. In all likelyhood you would still be convited of the first offence, so be prepared for that outcome. Also if you go to Court you should be aware that, worst case scenario, you may be convicted of both offences and end up with higher fines and have to pay court costs on top.

[spudchucka]

also i called the Infringement bureau, the opperater was good but i dont think she was that well informed so she transfered me to an officer who was rude and sounded very uniterested in answering my inquiry, so i just hung up on the prick, no use wasting my time on him.
Write a letter.

[mattd]

2: Write a detailed and reasoned letter to the Infringment Buraeu explaining the circumstances, highlighting the unreasonable nature of the second ticket. Be professional, don't be abusive or sarcastic.

3: Don't pay and defend both tickets in Court. You may be lucky and find a Judge / JP that has some sympathy for your plight. In all likelyhood you would still be convited of the first offence, so be prepared for that outcome. Also if you go to Court you should be aware that, worst case scenario, you may be convicted of both offences and end up with higher fines and have to pay court costs on top.

yeah i have to go to court for the first ticket, but that would be after the 28 days given to pay the 2nd ticket wouldn't it? so how do i get around protesting the 2 tickets when i more than likely have to pay one before the court date?

so i think i'll try and take option 2, the Infringement bureau should have all the information on their end right? i just need to give them the ticket numbers (or however they identify them) and my side of the story and they will sort it out (hopefully to my favor)?

thanks for your help spudchucka :yes:

[spudchucka]

yeah i have to go to court for the first ticket, but that would be after the 28 days given to pay the 2nd ticket wouldn't it? so how do i get around protesting the 2 tickets when i more than likely have to pay one before the court date?

so i think i'll try and take option 2, the Infringement bureau should have all the information on their end right? i just need to give them the ticket numbers (or however they identify them) and my side of the story and they will sort it out (hopefully to my favor)?

thanks for your help spudchucka :yes:
Send photo copies of the actual tickets with your letter.

In terms of Court, if you decide to defend the tickets, you simply don't pay the ticket and don't pay the reminder then it will automatically fall into the jurisdiction of the courts. You will receive a summons to come to court on a specific date.

Write to the bureau as soon as possible, their reply may help you decide whether to defend both tickets or just the second. Either way I wouldn't be paying any money until I have tried my best with the bureau. Then your options would be either pay both, pay the first and defend the second or defend both tickets.

What sort of speeds are we talking here, (don't post exact speeds if you aren't comfortable doing so)?

[skidz]

NAH: He can only give you one speeding infringement and as I recall, it's for the first one. Good luck.

[crazylittleshit]

Write a letter.
can't hurt.

[mattd]

He did not have a radar and didn't catch up to me till i was turning onto the second road, so he just said u were doing over 50kmh, then on the second road he got me at 68kmh. he turned his siren on after this as i was turning into a 3rd street just to get rid of any confusion in my first post about that.

[eliot-ness]

yeah im sweet with paying the speeding ticket, just not 2. he got me at 68 on the second rd but did not get a speed on the first, so i got to go to court for that one now. got an appointment with a lawyer next wensday. so we'll see what he says about the situation.

If he didn't get your speed on the first road how come you're getting a ticket for it? Don't they need proof nowadays?? If you're getting a lawyer he should be able to sort that one easily

[Lou Girardin]

also i called the Infringement bureau, the opperater was good but i dont think she was that well informed so she transfered me to an officer who was rude and sounded very uniterested in answering my inquiry, so i just hung up on the prick, no use wasting my time on him.

It just gets better doesn't it?
By the way Spud, my buddies seemingly include 47% of the population. We've all lost confidence in your profession. But don't let that get in the way of your personal attacks.

[chickenfunkstar]

He did not have a radar and didn't catch up to me till i was turning onto the second road, so he just said u were doing over 50kmh, then on the second road he got me at 68kmh. he turned his siren on after this as i was turning into a 3rd street just to get rid of any confusion in my first post about that.


That sounds ridiculous.
First write a letter to the infringement bureau, explaining the situation.
I'd imagine they'd either:

1. Cancel the first ticket.

2. Tell you that they're not dropping either charge.

If they decide on option 2, then its time to see a lawyer.
Don't pay either ticket untill they respond to your letter.

You also get another 28 days to pay the ticket if you do write the letter. i.e the payment date gets reset.
Don't worry about the payment date expiring while you wait for a response from the infringement bureau.

[mattd]

If he didn't get your speed on the first road how come you're getting a ticket for it? Don't they need proof nowadays?? If you're getting a lawyer he should be able to sort that one easily
cus i was still going over 50kmh, he just doesnt know how much over. im just annoyed that he consider it 2 seperate offences and did not really try to get my attention to pull me over, i mean if i ride more than 100m down the road without pulling over or adjusting my speed i think he should have realised that i had not noticed him. but hopefully like you say the lawyer will know something more than us and be able to get it sorted out, meanwhile i have a letter to write so i can check it with the lawyer on wednesday.

[Oakie]

So what he's done is treated it as two different types of offence? First would be excessive speed although without an actual speed and drawing a fine just for going over the speed limit and
The second is excessive speed with a measured speed drawing a rated fine for the speed actually done.
I may see his logic but I don't agree with it. Perhaps he could have just left you with the more expensive of the two tickets.

[mattd]

So what he's done is treated it as two different types of offence? First would be excessive speed although without an actual speed and drawing a fine just for going over the speed limit and
The second is excessive speed with a measured speed drawing a rated fine for the speed actually done.
I may see his logic but I don't agree with it. Perhaps he could have just left you with the more expensive of the two tickets.

yeah that could make sense, but he actually said to me when i asked him why i was getting 2 tickets "becuase it was 2 different roads", he also sounded pissed off that i questioned this. oh well just more shit to deal with.

[chickenfunkstar]

cus i was still going over 50kmh, he just doesnt know how much over. im just annoyed that he consider it 2 seperate offences and did not really try to get my attention to pull me over, i mean if i ride more than 100m down the road without pulling over or adjusting my speed i think he should have realised that i had not noticed him. but hopefully like you say the lawyer will know something more than us and be able to get it sorted out, meanwhile i have a letter to write so i can check it with the lawyer on wednesday.

Yeah, just make sure the lawyer doesn't cost more than the tickets.

I've got off a ticket that I believed was wrongly issued before without spending a cent on a laywer.

Just make sure the letter is precise. and states the facts.
If you do go to court, there's free lawyers available.

I don't see why it HAS to cost you anything.

[spudchucka]

It just gets better doesn't it?
By the way Spud, my buddies seemingly include 47% of the population. We've all lost confidence in your profession. But don't let that get in the way of your personal attacks.
Personal attack?? Get your hand off it Lou.

[steved]

It just gets better doesn't it?
By the way Spud, my buddies seemingly include 47% of the population. We've all lost confidence in your profession. But don't let that get in the way of your personal attacks.
What personal attack? The question was answered very fairly IMO.

[mattd]

my threads getting hijacked!
your right chickenfuckstar, had a little talk with the people at the citizens advice bureau and they have a free lawyer service there so so far im only $150 out of pocket (for the 68 in a 50 ticket)
thanks for all the help guys, especially spudchucka, its good to have someone one the other "side" that will take the time to share their knowledge on the issues. thanks

[spudchucka]

No problem. Let us know what the outcome is.

[mattd]

yeah will do.
good thing uni holidays are on now, can save some money to pay this (and my overdraft) off! :yes:

[Lou Girardin]

So what he's done is treated it as two different types of offence? First would be excessive speed although without an actual speed and drawing a fine just for going over the speed limit and
The second is excessive speed with a measured speed drawing a rated fine for the speed actually done.
I may see his logic but I don't agree with it. Perhaps he could have just left you with the more expensive of the two tickets.

Exceeding a speed limit is just that. It doesn't matter how it's measured.
The cop's out of line. Even we snakes didn't do crap like that.

[Ixion]

I was always under the impression that the two times/places had to be non-contiguous.eg this road in the morning, again in the afternoon. Or this road at 11am and a different one ,not just a progression. (obviously,at another time unless you can be in two places at the same time. ). That is, they have to be two separate incidents.

But I could be completely wrong.

Just seems to stupid otherwise for even Parliament to have meant it thus.

[MikeL]

I was always under the impression that the two times/places had to be non-contiguous.eg this road in the morning, again in the afternoon. Or this road at 11am and a different one ,not just a progression. (obviously,at another time unless you can be in two places at the same time. ). That is, they have to be two separate incidents.

But I could be completely wrong.

Just seems to stupid otherwise for even Parliament to have meant it thus.

So can someone in the know tell us what exactly the legal definition of separate offences is? Where in the road code is it specified?
If it is up to the discretion of the officer, does this mean that technically an officer could follow someone over a period of time on the same road, noting down each time the limit was exceeded, and subsequently issue several separate tickets?
Or alternatively, follow someone exceeding the speed limit consistently and each time he turns into a new road note down the offence and issue multiple tickets?
Sure could have some fun with that...

[GSVR]

ok i was just wondering about a couple of speeding tickets i got this morn. apperently the cop was following me down 1 road onto another with his lights on, i couldnt really see him in my mirrors, then he put his siren on just as i was turning into another street (stupid time for him to distract me with that mid-corner). he then proceeded to issue 2 tickets becuase it was 2 different roads. whats with that? i would think it would be the same offence = 1 ticket? does this sound right to u guys?

I wouldn't take it to personal he was probably behind on his quota and had to get a couple of tickets quickly or risk being demoted to footsoldier or something. Traffic officers are just doing their job. You should of thanked him for using the siren as if he hadn't you might have ended up with half a dozen tickets or so by the time you noticed the flashing lights.

On a brighter note I see in the newpaper tonight they are testing two motorbikes down in Canterbury. Bike cops might be on the way back. Isn't this exciting news.

[Indoo]

yeah im sweet with paying the speeding ticket, just not 2. he got me at 68 on the second rd but did not get a speed on the first, so i got to go to court for that one now. got an appointment with a lawyer next wensday. so we'll see what he says about the situation.

The first was an offence notice then, not a speeding ticket. I'd imagine it is for dangerous driving or dangerous speed?

Ive never heard of it being done before, it would be seen as double dipping or something along those lines.

And Lou please don't try to make your crusade against the Police out to be 'normal', its a little sad and pathetic but thats about it.

[chickenfunkstar]

my threads getting hijacked!
your right chickenfuckstar, had a little talk with the people at the citizens advice bureau and they have a free lawyer service there so so far im only $150 out of pocket (for the 68 in a 50 ticket)
thanks for all the help guys, especially spudchucka, its good to have someone one the other "side" that will take the time to share their knowledge on the issues. thanks

Chickenfuckstar....? :rofl: :rofl: :killingme :killingme :killingme

[Lou Girardin]

Oh thanks indoo, you're quite right. Hey chickenf, pay both fines like a good citizen.
Don't question, don't complain.

[spudchucka]

don't complain.
You do enough for everybody.

[Big Dave]

its a little sad and pathetic but thats about it.

There has to be a 'devils advocate' to stimulate debate. Yin and yang.
I enjoy their thrust and parry - until the 'p' word came out.
Upper cuts all round.

[spudchucka]

So can someone in the know tell us what exactly the legal definition of separate offences is? Where in the road code is it specified?
If it is up to the discretion of the officer, does this mean that technically an officer could follow someone over a period of time on the same road, noting down each time the limit was exceeded, and subsequently issue several separate tickets?
Or alternatively, follow someone exceeding the speed limit consistently and each time he turns into a new road note down the offence and issue multiple tickets?
Sure could have some fun with that...
Like I said earlier, it stinks a bit of unfairness and to me is actually quite unreasonable. But if you think about it like this..... A driver is travelling on a road at 7:35 AM and is exceeding the speed limit by 21kph. He slows down below the posted speed limit to negotiate a turn into another road. He then proceeds along this road at the speed limit but then accelerates to a speed now exceeding the posted limit by 25kph, the time is now 7:38 AM.

Has he committed one offence or two?

If the answer is one then consider this...... A man goes into the two dollar shop at 9:35 AM and steals a childs toy, valued at $2.00. He leaves that shop and then enters the shop next door, an antique shop, it is now 9:38 AM. He steals an antique childs toy valued at $300.00.

Is he liable for one charge of theft to the value of $302.00 or is he liable for two charges of theft, one to the value of $2.00 and the other to the value of $300.00?

[DingDong]

it bullshit, see a lawer

[Ixion]

..

If the answer is one then consider this...... A man goes into the two dollar shop at 9:35 AM and steals a childs toy, valued at $2.00. He leaves that shop and then enters the shop next door, an antique shop, it is now 9:38 AM. He steals an antique childs toy valued at $300.00.

Is he liable for one charge of theft to the value of $302.00 or is he liable for two charges of theft, one to the value of $2.00 and the other to the value of $300.00?

Or,he goes into the supermarket and steals a tin of baked beans value $1.00. Then he walks around to the next aisle and steals 2 tins of soup value $2.00 each.

One theft charge, two charges, or three ?

[Coldkiwi]

And Lou please don't try to make your crusade against the Police out to be 'normal', its a little sad and pathetic but thats about it.

ok, so lou might get a little excited before most people on this site when the subject of rubbish traffic policing comes up, but there are a LOT of people (just count the number of posters who have said 'this is bollocks' already) here and elsewhere that have had a gutsful of this quota/money focussed traffic policing. Have a look for the Herald Digipoll's done on how many people have confidence in the police these days and see where its plumetted from in the past.... its sure as heck not all roses and I don't hear any where near as many complaints about people related to general duties cops behaviour.

[Ixion]

ok, so lou might get a little excited before most people on this site when the subject of rubbish traffic policing comes up, but there are a LOT of people (just count the number of posters who have said 'this is bollocks' already) here and elsewhere that have had a gutsful of this quota/money focussed traffic policing. Have a look for the Herald Digipoll's done on how many people have confidence in the police these days and see where its plumetted from in the past.... its sure as heck not all roses and I don't hear any where near as many complaints about people related to general duties cops behaviour.

In fairness, Mr Spudchucka was of the number expressing reservations.

[jaybee180]

ok, so lou might get a little excited before most people on this site when the subject of rubbish traffic policing comes up, but there are a LOT of people (just count the number of posters who have said 'this is bollocks' already) here and elsewhere that have had a gutsful of this quota/money focussed traffic policing. Have a look for the Herald Digipoll's done on how many people have confidence in the police these days and see where its plumetted from in the past.... its sure as heck not all roses and I don't hear any where near as many complaints about people related to general duties cops behaviour.

Cops have a job to do just like everyone else - and just like every other job there are some people who don't do the rest of us any favours. But I'm sure no one here goes to work and tells the boss what they will or won't do! Some things (like writing tickets) just have to be done! Stop whinging at the cops Lou and get on to your parlimentarians! Go to the source man!

Spuds given good advice. Question it as long as you can. You are entitled to do this. Make sure everything is in writing and you keep a copy. Do NOT send the originals tickets away - make sure they are photocopies.

And good luck.

[scumdog]

Not the sort of ticketing that I'd normally do - but then I ain't normal.

Technically yes, it is possible that it was two offences but it's splitting hairs and sucks.

[XTC]

I've never had a ticket for obeying the road rules.... Always my tickets have been for breaking the rules.

[Indoo]

ok, so lou might get a little excited before most people on this site when the subject of rubbish traffic policing comes up...

Lou just slags off Police in general, he doesn't make any distinction between 'traffic' cops and the gdb. Read his posts, you might want to take a prozac or two first, pity is a depressing emotion.

[Ixion]

Lou just slags off Police in general, he doesn't make any distinction between 'traffic' cops and the gdb. Read his posts, you might want to take a prozac or two first, pity is a depressing emotion.

I thought that general duties did traffic too? (I presume that gdb is General Duties Branch ?)

[Zed]

ok i was just wondering about a couple of speeding tickets i got this morn. apperently the cop was following me down 1 road onto another with his lights on, i couldnt really see him in my mirrors, then he put his siren on just as i was turning into another street (stupid time for him to distract me with that mid-corner). he then proceeded to issue 2 tickets becuase it was 2 different roads. whats with that? i would think it would be the same offence = 1 ticket? does this sound right to u guys?Bummer dude! Why is it that you couldn't "really" see him in your mirrors? :nono:

[Pixie]

Wow! Clark will give that man a promotion when Robinson tells her he discovered a way to double the revenue from one "contact". :devil2:

[Lou Girardin]

Lou just slags off Police in general, he doesn't make any distinction between 'traffic' cops and the gdb. Read his posts, you might want to take a prozac or two first, pity is a depressing emotion.

They are all Police. The GD issue more tickets than HP because there are more of them.
And don't waste your pity on me, there are far more deserving recipients.

PS I know that the failing of cherished institutions is terrifying for some.
But it will be alright in the end, have faith, try Arapax.

[vifferman]

But it will be alright in the end, have faith, try Arapax.
Aropax, actually. Don't try it.

[Fart]

ok i was just wondering about a couple of speeding tickets i got this morn. apperently the cop was following me down 1 road onto another with his lights on, i couldnt really see him in my mirrors, then he put his siren on just as i was turning into another street (stupid time for him to distract me with that mid-corner). he then proceeded to issue 2 tickets becuase it was 2 different roads. whats with that? i would think it would be the same offence = 1 ticket? does this sound right to u guys?


Use the media to your advantage. When you write a letter, CC: it to TV1, TV2 and TV3. I am sure the media would love to do a story on this one. Good luck.

[GSVR]

I'm so paranoid about being picked up for some minor infringement I'm constantly looking in my rear view mirrors to see whos following me.

Biggest concern is while I'm distracted by looking backwards I may miss something infront and have a serious accident.

Why didn't you see the police cars flashing lights? I was devoting 100% concentration to where I was going.

If I travel at the exact speed limit I always seem to get some really pissed of guy sitting way too close behind me and I'm convinced that if I had to stop in a hurry I would end up embedded in their grill.

Travelling at just below 60kph in a 50kph zone the problem goes away and the speeding ticket is unlikely but if I just go slightly over this I'm into the getting a ticket zone. So when I'm not constantly looking in my rear vision mirrors I'm constantly looking at my speedo to confirm my speed hasn't creeped up by a couple of k's.

Maybe I need a scooter and ride at 50kph as close to the footpath as possible. Na that is dangerous.

[mattd]

Chickenfuckstar....? :rofl: :rofl: :killingme :killingme :killingme

damn i didnt even notice, it was probably my subconscious pissed of self saying that. :mad: :mad: :oi-grr:
sorry

[spudchucka]

Or,he goes into the supermarket and steals a tin of baked beans value $1.00. Then he walks around to the next aisle and steals 2 tins of soup value $2.00 each.

One theft charge, two charges, or three ?
Same time and place, therefore one charge, theft to the value of $5.00.

[Lou Girardin]

Same time and place, therefore one charge, theft to the value of $5.00.

Unless they introduce a quota for theft. :devil2:

[Ixion]

Same time and place, therefore one charge, theft to the value of $5.00.

But, the distance to walk to another aisle in a supermarket could be greater than walking into the next shop from a small store. And take longer. So the supermarket thief might be further in both place and time from his first heist than the convenience small thief

I think you are right about one being two charges and the other one. But Mr mattd's case is surely closer to the supermarket. There was only a few minutes between the two points and they were on a direct route.

Had he stoped (for gas for instance) then resumed I would say two.

Perhaps it is easier to think of it as a matter of intent.

The difference is between saying "I am going to speed here" and knocking off a kilometre at illegal speed (regardless of how many corners you turn). One "making up of mind", one intent, one charge ; and saying " I am going to speed here" doing half a kilometre at illegal speed, then slowing down to legal, and saying a second time "I am going to speed AGAIN". Two "makings up of mind", two intents, two charges. (Though I think speeding is an absolute offence where it doesn't matter if you intended to or not ? )

Bit academic anyway cos (a) pretty much everybody reckons it's a bit off, even you and Mr Scumdog; and (b) the copper done it anyway, right or wrong, so it's up to whoever decides what charges to lay, or the judge, to say if it's on or not.

[spudchucka]

Your supermarket scenario is basically multiple acts of theft within the one place, despite the offender obviously moving from aisle to aisle.

The way I looked at mattd's scenario was that he was speeding on one road, (first ticket), he has then slowed to a speed within the posted limit and turned onto a second road, he has then accelerated to a speed in excess of the posted speed limit, (second ticket).

I don't agree with it as a practice, there may be times when it is appropriate but going on his account I have to say that I don't believe it is, (appropriate) in this case.

I like your thoughts on the intent involved, (mens rea). Speeding is pretty much either done intentionally, (deliberately exceeding the speed limit, knowing that doing so is an offence) or carelessly, (not paying attention to your speed).

If it was me I'd be taking it to court because I believe it is unreasonable. I'd happily pay the first offence if they agreed to drop the second.

[Ixion]

Your supermarket scenario is basically multiple acts of theft within the one place, despite the offender obviously moving from aisle to aisle.

The way I looked at mattd's scenario was that he was speeding on one road, (first ticket), he has then slowed to a speed within the posted limit and turned onto a second road, he has then accelerated to a speed in excess of the posted speed limit, (second ticket).

I don't agree with it as a practice, there may be times when it is appropriate but going on his account I have to say that I don't believe it is, (appropriate) in this case.

I like your thoughts on the intent involved, (mens rea). Speeding is pretty much either done intentionally, (deliberately exceeding the speed limit, knowing that doing so is an offence) or carelessly, (not paying attention to your speed).

If it was me I'd be taking it to court because I believe it is unreasonable. I'd happily pay the first offence if they agreed to drop the second.


Not sure if Mr Mattd said he slowed down between them , or not. Though I guess he might have had to to get round the corner.

I could see a cop dishing out two tickets if there was a reasonable distance of "legal" between two "illegals". That's sort of "You did it, and then you did it again". You'd have to make a second decsion to speed for the second time. Dunno about just slowing for a corner though.

All in all I guess the cop was a bit cross (probably cos Mr Mattd didn't stop for his lights), and decided to "throw the book at him". Surprised he didn't book him for failing to use mirrors actually.

[eliot-ness]

Whatever happened to the good old days when the cops, usually in a car that wouldn't top 80mph, had to follow you one third of a mile, with another cop in the car as a witness, at a speed constantly above the speed limit. All we had to do in those days was open the throttle if a cop was behind. Never did get a ticket. OR we could go back further to when the cops hid behind trees and measured with a stop watch the time it took to travel between two telegraph poles. Not much revenue collected then.
Fings ain't wot they used to be.

----------------------------------
What's legal isn't always right and what's right isn't always legal

[GSVR]

Mr Mattd obviously didn't slow down after he heard the cops siren otherwise he would never have got the second ticket for doing 68kph.

You screwd up Matt bite the bullet pay the fines and learn not to mess with the law.

[Beemer]

He did not have a radar and didn't catch up to me till i was turning onto the second road, so he just said u were doing over 50kmh, then on the second road he got me at 68kmh. he turned his siren on after this as i was turning into a 3rd street just to get rid of any confusion in my first post about that.

Just a question - if he didn't have a radar and didn't know your exact speed in the first road, how did he know you were doing 68kph when he pulled you up? Was that just going by his speedo? If so, then is this legal, and if not, then why couldn't he say what speed you were originally doing?

Sounds totally dodgy to me, I can understand being given a ticket say for speeding AND having an expired rego or something, but not for two instances of speeding in a couple of minutes! When I saw the title I thought it was what happened to a friend of ours - got a speed camera ticket going into Shannon (didn't see the van so didn't know he'd got a ticket until later!) and was pulled up by a cop for speeding as he headed out of town - only a distance of about a kilometre in total!

[Da Bird]

Have to agree with it being unfair... cop was obviously not a happy chappy.

A couple of points: To get a speed check by using a speedo, you have to travel at that constant speed for 400 metres, so it might pay to check your distances that you travelled before entering the second street - at the least question where he started following you.

Check the times on your tickets... are they the same, or a minute or two apart... if they are the same time you may have grounds for disputing you were on two different roads at the same time (at least some reasonable doubt there).

I actually found your story quite bizarre to be honest... if you had stopped, been given a ticket, then took off at a high speed and got stopped again, then I would have no problem with you getting a second ticket, as it would be obvious you didn't learn from the first one but I've never heard of someone in your situation.

BC.

[Skyryder]

Sounds like this ahole hasn't had his leg over recently.


Probably in such a hurry his second leg followed and he fell off.


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Like I said earlier, it stinks a bit of unfairness and to me is actually quite unreasonable. But if you think about it like this..... A driver is travelling on a road at 7:35 AM and is exceeding the speed limit by 21kph. He slows down below the posted speed limit to negotiate a turn into another road. He then proceeds along this road at the speed limit but then accelerates to a speed now exceeding the posted limit by 25kph, the time is now 7:38 AM.


Has he committed one offence or two?

If the answer is one then consider this...... A man goes into the two dollar shop at 9:35 AM and steals a childs toy, valued at $2.00. He leaves that shop and then enters the shop next door, an antique shop, it is now 9:38 AM. He steals an antique childs toy valued at $300.00.

Is he liable for one charge of theft to the value of $302.00 or is he liable for two charges of theft, one to the value of $2.00 and the other to the value of $300.00?

That's an interesting analogy Spud. Lets counter it with another 'criminal' offence. I come home from work fancy a little slap and tickle with the wife but first I light up and smoke a joint. Do the buisness and afterwards have another one. Smoke that is. Tweny years ago it might have been different. :rofl: So have I commited two offences or just the one?

Skyryder

[spudchucka]

All in all I guess the cop was a bit cross (probably cos Mr Mattd didn't stop for his lights), and decided to "throw the book at him". Surprised he didn't book him for failing to use mirrors actually.
I'm not aware of a specific offence for failing to use mirrors, I think proving where somebody was or wasn't looking could be a tad difficult.

I've had hundreds of people technically failing to stop for red & blue lights simply because they are oblivious to their presence, (even with a siren blasting them from behind some drivers remain oblivious). Old folks are the worst, I remember following an old crusty for about 5 kilometres once with lights on and sirens wailing. When she eventually stopped and I spoke to her she just said, "Oh, I'm sorry dear, I didn't think you could possibly be wanting me to stop and I just couldn't understand why you didn't just go past me".

I was stopping her because she had failed to stop at a stop sign but after about a ten minute chat and me listening to half of her life story I sent her on her way with only a reminder of certain road rules.

You can tell when a "failing to stop" is a deliberate act or not. I won't necessarily be any more unforgiving to a person in mattd's position simply because he took a while to realise he was required to stop.

[Ixion]

I'm not aware of a specific offence for failing to use mirrors, I think proving where somebody was or wasn't looking could be a tad difficult.

I've had hundreds of people technically failing to stop for red & blue lights simply because they are oblivious to their presence, (even with a siren blasting them from behind some drivers remain oblivious). Old folks are the worst, I remember following an old crusty for about 5 kilometres once with lights on and sirens wailing. When she eventually stopped and I spoke to her she just said, "Oh, I'm sorry dear, I didn't think you could possibly be wanting me to stop and I just couldn't understand why you didn't just go past me".

I was stopping her because she had failed to stop at a stop sign but after about a ten minute chat and me listening to half of her life story I sent her on her way with only a reminder of certain road rules.

You can tell when a "failing to stop" is a deliberate act or not. I won't necessarily be any more unforgiving to a person in mattd's position simply because he took a while to realise he was required to stop.


Clarifying, I wasn't implying that I thought Mr Mattd deliberately didn't stop. Just that the officer was cross that he didn't.

[spudchucka]

That's an interesting analogy Spud. Lets counter it with another 'criminal' offence. I come home from work fancy a little slap and tickle with the wife but first I light up and smoke a joint. Do the buisness and afterwards have another one. Smoke that is. Tweny years ago it might have been different. :rofl: So have I commited two offences or just the one?

Skyryder
One. Being stupid by night.

Unless of course it was daylight when you had the first smoke and night time when you had the second smoke. Then you would be liable for "stupid by day" and the more serious offence, "stupid by night". :drinkup:

[spudchucka]

Clarifying, I wasn't implying that I thought Mr Mattd deliberately didn't stop. Just that the officer was cross that he didn't.
Yeah, I understood that.

[Skyryder]

One. Being stupid by night.

Unless of course it was daylight when you had the first smoke and night time when you had the second smoke. Then you would be liable for "stupid by day" and the more serious offence, "stupid by night". :drinkup:

Is that the best you can come up with? Surley not. You used a criminal offence, as an analogy, for a non criminal one. I used a criminal anlogy (smoking) for your 'criminal' (theft) anlogy. I suspect from the 'tone' of your reply to me that you have now discovered the absurdity of your post.

:rofl: :rofl: you meet the nicest of people down on the floor. :drinkup:

Skyryder

[spudchucka]

II suspect from the 'tone' of your reply to me that you have now discovered the absurdity of your post.
Nope, just don't want to get another "smoking dope is naughty" thread going; I really can't be bothered with going too far down this road again.

If it could be proved that you smoked dope on two different occassions, regardless of the place the smoking was done at, then you could be charged with two separate charges of consuming cannabis. I prefer the stupid by night charge though. However in reality there would have to be a witness to the smoking otherwise the worst that could happen is you get done for possession but that won't happen because you already smoked all the weed man.

[Big Dave]

because you already smoked all the weed man.

Did you say that like 'Neil' from the Young Ones when he joined the 'piiigs'?
I hope you did.

[spudchucka]

Did you say that like 'Neil' from the Young Ones when he joined the 'piiigs'?
I hope you did.
Yeah, Right On!

[myvice]

Wow, 2 tickets for speeding at once, bugger. Er, if he has no radar in his car and had to catch up to you on road No1, how fast was he going? And how did he get an accurate measure of your speed? If he was using his speedo to get a "fix" on your speed, when was it last callabrated? If he was giving you a ticket for excessive speed it is because speeding is dangerous, you could hurt yourself or others, so why wait to put his sirens on? Wouldnt he want to protect you from yourself A.S.A.P?
Just an observation.

Next time have a big fucking NOS bottle! Yeeeee Harr! :nya:

[scumdog]

That's an interesting analogy Spud. Lets counter it with another 'criminal' offence. I come home from work fancy a little slap and tickle with the wife but first I light up and smoke a joint. Do the buisness and afterwards have another one. Smoke that is. Tweny years ago it might have been different. :rofl: So have I commited two offences or just the one?

Skyryder

1st offence: needing a joint before 'slap and tickle' - you NEED that before s&t??

2nd offence: being awake enough to have another joint!!!

[Aitch]

That this was just another way to get the figures up so that the Minister of Police can get up in parliament and tell the house that crime resolution rates are up.....

[spudchucka]

Err, speeding tickets have absolutely nothing to do with crime resolution rates.

[mattd]

A couple of points: To get a speed check by using a speedo, you have to travel at that constant speed for 400 metres, so it might pay to check your distances that you travelled before entering the second street - at the least question where he started following you.

Check the times on your tickets... are they the same, or a minute or two apart... if they are the same time you may have grounds for disputing you were on two different roads at the same time (at least some reasonable doubt there).

BC.

does anyone know if the 400m rule is correct, i remember hearing something like that but never knew the exact details. it would be pushing for it to be 400m on the second rd even if it included all the road i traveled not just the part i was being followed at a constant speed on. better go do some measuring tonight then.

i can't believe you probably could get off the tickets by disputing that one can not be in 2 places at once. :rofl: though i knew a friend who got of her ticket because they spelt her name wrong on it or something like that.

edit: ok just relised now that Bykey Cop is actually a bike cop :weird: so i guess he should know. ok now its off to measure the road. thanks Bykey Cop!

[mikey]

lets have us another cop bashing forum eh!!!!!!!!!

i wana be a cop, just they wont let me in.....

[Lou Girardin]

One. Being stupid by night.

Unless of course it was daylight when you had the first smoke and night time when you had the second smoke. Then you would be liable for "stupid by day" and the more serious offence, "stupid by night". :drinkup:

You could fill your quota at headquarters with those offences. Start with Georgie then work down.

[Lou Girardin]

does anyone know if the 400m rule is correct, i remember hearing something like that but never knew the exact details. it would be pushing for it to be 400m on the second rd even if it included all the road i traveled not just the part i was being followed at a constant speed on. better go do some measuring tonight then.
!

MOT policy was 400 metres. But the courts just have to be satisfied you did an accurate check. When we sat on on-ramps, we'd have plenty of space to get almost alongside speeders where it's easy to maintain spacing, so we'd only check them for 100 to 150 metres.

[spudchucka]

You could fill your quota at headquarters with those offences. Start with Georgie then work down.
If those offences were imprisonable we could get rid of about two thirds of the population.

[Lou Girardin]

If those offences were imprisonable we could get rid of about two thirds of the population.

Yeah right!
The other third has to pay for the jails.
That'd be a 200% tax rate. We'd have nothing left for speed tax.

[scumdog]

Lou, does your quote about speedsters mean every three months a speedster crashes into the same bus and kills all on board?? :weird: :whistle:

[Lou Girardin]

Lou, does your quote about speedsters mean every three months a speedster crashes into the same bus and kills all on board?? :weird: :whistle:

I don't know. But it's an LTNZ ad so it must be true. I wonder what the speeder hits them with?
An LAV?

[geoffm]

Err, speeding tickets have absolutely nothing to do with crime resolution rates.

...except having all the coppers working for the IRD means that crimes don't get solved? Been burgled yet? If you are in Auckland, the stats from a couple of years ago: only 6% will get solved, and the cops don't bother to turn up 1/3 of the time to investigate. I assume the 6% is only because the crims discover God and repent their sins...
Bitter..who, me? F* yes!
Geoff

[Lou Girardin]

Fiddling files has a lot to do with crime resolution rates though.

[spudchucka]

Fiddling files has a lot to do with crime resolution rates though.
What on earth are you talking about??? :whistle:

[scumdog]

Fiddling files has a lot to do with crime resolution rates though.

Whatya talking about Willis?

It's the fiddling of the RESULTS on those files by ???? (you guess) that create the crime resolution rates. :yes:

[Lou Girardin]

Whatya talking about Willis?

It's the fiddling of the RESULTS on those files by ???? (you guess) that create the crime resolution rates. :yes:

That's it!
And referring to 'reported' crime.