Ticketed $150 for following too close on the harbour bridge

[danchop]

speed assessed as 70-74kmh and not within 28 metres of the vehicle in front.
are they having a laugh?

[Edbear]

speed assessed as 70-74kmh and not within 28 metres of the vehicle in front.
are they having a laugh?

So that was you...? Was wondering why a car was pulled over when everyone was going so slow, figured it couldn't be for speeding!

[Toaster]

I would be impressed if they picked off more genuinely dangerous tailgaiters.

Problem with Auckland traffic though, as soon as you leave a safe 2 second distance, some knob-muncher fills it with his fat arse.

We are dammed if we do follow close and dammed if we dont.:scooter:2 seconds:scooter:

[YellowDog]

speed assessed as 70-74kmh and not within 28 metres of the vehicle in front.
are they having a laugh?

Maybe you wouldn't have been so close to the car in front if some tosser wasn't pushing up your arse forcing you closer to the car in front.

Yesterday I had a cop car follow me from SH16 and up SH1 over the Harbour Bridge. He was sitting right behind me throught the 70kph and 80kph limits. I have 75 points on my licence and caould really do without this childish shit. Fortunately he turned off at Stafford Park.

I am amazed that the Police are so over resourced that they can fill the roads with cop cars to harrass road users in this way. It's like an Eastern block Police state.

Did you get any demerits?

[miloking]

2 second rule bro, or is it 3 second? Who knows...who cares....

[Edbear]

Maybe you wouldn't have been so close to the car in front if some tosser wasn't pushing up your arse forcing you closer to the car in front....

Can't force you closer than you let him...

[danchop]

2 second rule bro, or is it 3 second? Who knows...who cares....
i know,was just my normal travelling distance on a bike and it was going up the bridge at under the speed limit anyway,couldnt understand why his lights came on as i overtook him,and was gobsmacked by his reason,i said nothing i was so gobsmacked until he handed me the ticket and then i said this..
youve just added me to the list of people that will cheer and laugh when another of you pricks gets assualted or whatever,see you later
didnt wait for the wankers reply

[DrunkenMistake]

Oh wow I didnt even know you could get a ticket for that?
it should be common sense not an offence.

Ohh I like that haha.

[TOTO]

thanks for letting us know

[YellowDog]

i know,was just my normal travelling distance on a bike and it was going up the bridge at under the speed limit anyway,couldnt understand why his lights came on as i overtook him,and was gobsmacked by his reason,i said nothing i was so gobsmacked until he handed me the ticket and then i said this..
youve just added me to the list of people that will cheer and laugh when another of you pricks gets assualted or whatever,see you later
didnt wait for the wankers reply

You should have Citizen's Arrested him for inciting hatred against The Police :no:

There are a lot of good cops out there who may suffer as a result of such idiotic behaviour.

[Smifffy]

Maybe he was filming for a "reality" tv show?

Like the Hoff up at Piha with those surfers

[danchop]

well i call for a police offensive on this,how many vehicles can fit on the harbour bridge if everyone is doing 70kmh and all follow the 28metre rule?math experts please

[nothingflash]

and then i said this..
youve just added me to the list of people that will cheer and laugh when another of you pricks gets assualted or whatever,see you later
didnt wait for the wankers reply

Wow - that's wicked alright. I bet you felt awesome...you know, like you really put the guy in his place.

I bet you couldn't wait to share that on here so other people can see how awesome you are as well.

:tugger:

[danchop]

Wow - that's wicked alright. I bet you felt awesome...you know, like you really put the guy in his place.

I bet you couldn't wait to share that on here so other people can see how awesome you are as well.

:tugger:
nah i couldnt

[marie_speeds]

speed assessed as 70-74kmh and not within 28 metres of the vehicle in front.
are they having a laugh?

That really sucks! And seriously on a Saturday on the Harbour Bridge when it is that busy....
Perhaps it's all part of an ill disguised campaign to ticket motorcyclists and then use the issue of those tickets in statistics to justify to the public how dangerous we are?:shutup:

[cbfb]

Maybe you wouldn't have been so close to the car in front if some tosser wasn't pushing up your arse forcing you closer to the car in front.

Yesterday I had a cop car follow me from SH16 and up SH1 over the Harbour Bridge. He was sitting right behind me throught the 70kph and 80kph limits. I have 75 points on my licence and caould really do without this childish shit. Fortunately he turned off at Stafford Park.

I am amazed that the Police are so over resourced that they can fill the roads with cop cars to harrass road users in this way. It's like an Eastern block Police state.

Did you get any demerits?

*555 him for tailgaiting :yes:

I did one once for a cop turning in front of me without indicating.

[The Stranger]

speed assessed as 70-74kmh and not within 28 metres of the vehicle in front.
are they having a laugh?

So, if I understand you weren't speeding and you were NOT within 28 metres of the vehicle in front?
Anyone know what the actual distance must be at that speed? Without counting out the 2 seconds I should have thought that (aprox) 7 car lengths was sufficient.

[CookMySock]

It's just a tax. Pay it - everyone else does. :niceone:

[Jantar]

speed assessed as 70-74kmh and not within 28 metres of the vehicle in front.
are they having a laugh?
No, but you have that ticket as evidence that no offence was committed. To have been following too close you would have had to have been within 28 meters of the vehicle in front. As you were not within that distance (use your ticket as evidence) then no offence has been committed.

[Ender EnZed]

No, but you have that ticket as evidence that no offence was committed. To have been following too close you would have had to have been within 28 meters of the vehicle in front. As you were not within that distance (use your ticket as evidence) then no offence has been committed.

As far as I'm aware tickets aren't normally issued as proof of innocence so presumably the ticket was for being within 28m. Correct me if I'm wrong danchop.

28m at 74km/h is about 1.36 seconds.

Sounds like you were following too close.

[steelestring]

speed assessed as 70-74kmh and not within 28 metres of the vehicle in front.
are they having a laugh?

I have been done for this before... after he caught up to me on the straights in featherston..... but it was only after he found out that vehicle was redged and wof was up to date, I was licensed, Tested my blinkers and brake light... inspected my tires.... then had to find out if the vehicle was not stolen...
Then he pulled this crap...
After being tail gated and pushed along by the cop himelf on the wellington motorway and rimutakas... his tires squelling while cornering (he was deffinitely playing with me and made me feel uncomfortable)

THE STOP, did the checks and found nothing... (this took a long time) and then said... "You came close to the middle line a few times" I said.....ok (useing my lane?) "dont you think you were following that van back there in that bit a bit close?"
I didnt pass any vans on the hill.... I said no. I asked what 'bit' he was reffering too
He said.. "that bit back there" (What the F????) I said I was sorry and didnt know what 'bit' or what he was refering too and explained I had passed 2 cars only.
He said, "well.... I think you were following too close and by doing so you have broken the 28 metre rule"..... Bang $150
He was just grumpy...
Paid it... forget about it..

[steelestring]

It's just a tax. Pay it - everyone else does. :niceone:

sure do :yes:

[danchop]

No, but you have that ticket as evidence that no offence was committed. To have been following too close you would have had to have been within 28 meters of the vehicle in front. As you were not within that distance (use your ticket as evidence) then no offence has been committed.

ive only realised the "not" part shouldnt have been there

[The Stranger]

No, but you have that ticket as evidence that no offence was committed. To have been following too close you would have had to have been within 28 meters of the vehicle in front. As you were not within that distance (use your ticket as evidence) then no offence has been committed.


ive only realised the "not" part shouldnt have been there

So, lets assume for a minute I'm ignorant (unlikely I know, but remotely possible I guess). Is there a requirement somewhere at law to be 28m or more behind a vehicle at 70kph?
Because being aware of this ticket today whilst traversing the section of road in question I took particular note.
At 70kph and counting out loud one thousand and one, one thousand and two I found this equated to aproximately 4 subaru stationwagons. Now lets take a semi-educated guess at say 4.2m per subaru I was more like 17m behind the car in front. No way in hell is 28m equivilent of 2 seconds at that speed.

[Jantar]

So, lets assume for a minute I'm ignorant (unlikely I know, but remotely possible I guess). Is there a requirement somewhere at law to be 28m or more behind a vehicle at 70kph?
Because being aware of this ticket today whilst traversing the section of road in question I took particular note.
At 70kph and counting out loud one thousand and one, one thousand and two I found this equated to aproximately 4 subaru stationwagons. Now lets take a semi-educated guess at say 4.2m per subaru I was more like 17m behind the car in front. No way in hell is 28m equivilent of 2 seconds at that speed.
The law is 1 car length for each 10 kmh. One car length is deemed to be 4 m. Hence 70 kmh is 28 m. The 2 second rule is a guide, not law, but is more conservative than the law.

At 70 kmh you are travelling 20 m/s so 28 m is just under 1.5 seconds.

[marie_speeds]

So, lets assume for a minute I'm ignorant (unlikely I know, but remotely possible I guess). Is there a requirement somewhere at law to be 28m or more behind a vehicle at 70kph?
Because being aware of this ticket today whilst traversing the section of road in question I took particular note.
At 70kph and counting out loud one thousand and one, one thousand and two I found this equated to aproximately 4 subaru stationwagons. Now lets take a semi-educated guess at say 4.2m per subaru I was more like 17m behind the car in front. No way in hell is 28m equivilent of 2 seconds at that speed.

You too? I tried counting in my head to work out using lamp post as reference and coud not see how it equated to 28m when it seemed I was much closer than that. But then I got ticketed using a bus lane to make a left turn so my perception of distance is probaby not the best...

[Berries]

So, lets assume for a minute I'm ignorant (unlikely I know, but remotely possible I guess). Is there a requirement somewhere at law to be 28m or more behind a vehicle at 70kph?
Section 5.9(4) of the Road User Rule. You can find it on the NZTA website.



(4) No driver may drive a motor vehicle on any road following behind another vehicle at a distance behind that vehicle of less than—

(a) 16 m, if his or her speed is 40 km an hour or more but less than 50 km an hour; or
(b) 20 m, if his or her speed is 50 km an hour or more but less than 60 km an hour; or
(c) 24 m, if his or her speed is 60 km an hour or more but less than 70 km an hour; or
(d) 28 m, if his or her speed is 70 km an hour or more but less than 80 km an hour; or
(e) 32 m, if his or her speed is 80 km an hour or more.

[The Stranger]

my perception of distance is probaby not the best...

Lets face it, you got an excuse cause guys are always lying about how long things really are. Must get confusing.

A hint though, when it gets to 20m - it's bullshit.

[The Stranger]

Section 5.9(4) of the Road User Rule. You can find it on the NZTA website.

Thank you,
But fook me, if they started enforcing that one they'd make an absolute killing.
Not to mention that no one in Auckland would ever get to work - when are they going to start building all the extra roads?

[ajturbo]

i would fight this one.. what a cock of a cop....
and i am GLAD you left him with something to think about next time he pulls a quoter filling thing like that,

[Max Preload]

So, lets assume for a minute I'm ignorant (unlikely I know, but remotely possible I guess). Is there a requirement somewhere at law to be 28m or more behind a vehicle at 70kph?
Because being aware of this ticket today whilst traversing the section of road in question I took particular note.
At 70kph and counting out loud one thousand and one, one thousand and two I found this equated to aproximately 4 subaru stationwagons. Now lets take a semi-educated guess at say 4.2m per subaru I was more like 17m behind the car in front. No way in hell is 28m equivilent of 2 seconds at that speed.2 seconds at 70km/h is 39m. This is considerably more than the required 4m per 10km/h required by the regulations, which would be only 28m.

[Ender EnZed]

I tried counting in my head to work out using lamp post as reference and coud not see how it equated to 28m when it seemed I was much closer than that.


i would fight this one.. what a cock of a cop....
and i am GLAD you left him with something to think about next time he pulls a quoter filling thing like that,


No way in hell is 28m equivilent of 2 seconds at that speed.

You're right. It's much less.

At 70km/h 28 meters is equivalent to 1.44 seconds.
At 74km/h it's equivalent to 1.36 seconds.
At 79km/h it's equivalent to 1.28 seconds.

15 year olds are taught that 2 seconds is a safe following distance.

Whenever speeding tickets are mentioned on KB there are cries that cops ought to be ticketing things like unsafe following distances instead. Might that be what's happened here?

[chasio]

TBH, I'd pay it and move on having been ticketed in the circumstances you describe.

But... if filtering legally (indicating, overtaking wholly in same lane, passing on RHS, etc.), there are times that I would be in the same lane as the car in front but obviously much less than the prescribed distance behind, given that I close the gap and then pass.

Is there a potential defence in saying that you were lined up and closing to overtake (legally, as above) at the time you were less than the required distance behind? It's probably not going to get you off at 70km/h plus (or if so they'll charge you with something more serious instead) but a bike going under 50km/h maybe it would...? If not, all filtering seems to be even more ping-prone than I had understood it previously.

[danchop]

probably will just pay it but its bullshit,he only pulled me over about 3km later when i overtook him,breathtested me as well at 12.09pm on a thurs arvo when he knew i was working as a courier at the time,twat
they advertise that you merge onto motorways like a zip,which totally blows following distances out the window i reckon

[CookMySock]

Stand yer ground and tell him to get fucked.

[imdying]

With the quotes of the law in mind, I have now started rigidly following those following distances on the way to work in the wifes car. I can tell you something for free, it's not going down very well here in the congested Christchurch roads. I'm just waiting for when some officious prick pulls me up for obstructing traffic flow... I'm merely following the law. If everybody followed that (instead of crawling at 20km/hr with less than car length in between), the economy would stop.

[YellowDog]

Stand yer ground and tell him to get fucked.

Yep, that'll be a sure fire winner :no:

I do agree that the 'moving closer to overtake' defence is quite reasonable (if that is what was happening) and would be interested to see what the non-motorcyclist 'unqualified to answer' cop reply would be.

Going to court and getting a Motorcyclist judge would make it more interesting :lol:

[Bender]

Plead not guilty.

By the time you get to court he will have forgotten how he measured the distance and they'll throw the case out. He won't be able to provide concrete proof on that one.

I'll bet you he doesn't even contest it.

[Voltaire]

+ 1 on going to court.
I'd write in and say you were keeping your 28 metre distance and the car cut in front of you and because the car behind was following too close you were unable to regain your safe following distance....this could take a couple of minutes...
Unfortunately thats when the nice policeman saw me.
And I would take it to court as they have to turn up, once I got off when it doubtful as they were too busy and I was let off as it was pretty minor.

or as the pervayor of full cream confectionery suggested you could them where to go....

[Conquiztador]

Happens. Was pinged for not having 100m free sight at all time when overtaking mufty car. (Came up to two cars sitting behing a cattle truck doing 70 on a 100k/h road. Passed the cars one at the time then the truck on same straight. No cars came in other direction while I passed. Apperently I was OK passing the truck but not him???)

He then wanted to talk bikes with me as he had been riding in the past. Right...

I do sympatise with the comment re these ones damaging the respect for the police. I was actually wondering if this was not part of the reason for the more violence towards them?

Took it on the chin and life went on.

[YellowDog]

Some Police officers have a very bad attitude that harms the reputaion of the entire Police force.

If you get caught doing something wrong, then fair enough. If the cop treats you like a kid and gives you his unqualified opinion and perception of what you have done wrong, then maybe they should be doing something more constructive rather than harrassing you.

There are a lot of very good cops doing a very good job.

We don't have cause to mention them very often. This may not be their fault!

[Mystic13]

If he's stopped you 3k's on then I'd argue it. I don't think your passing shot at him was useful. It just escalates and hardens attitudes.

I note we only get the miserable cop stories on here. I came around a bend down country and found a cop parked down a bank behind some grass and didn't see him till it was too late. A bit of quick deceleration and a glance at the speedo and I knew I was in for a serious ticket I was just hoping it wasn't loss of bike.

He just made a hand signal to slow down and we both knew I'd been pinged. I gave him a thumbs up and he nodded back. That was probably the most surreal experience I've had with a cop after facing the speed gun.

I've also been pinged by arrogant arseholes who have very clearly had it in for bikers. The cop was going off his tree at me for pinging me at 111kmph while passing in a passing lane. He had a serious anger issue and was unbalanced in his approach.

[oneofsix]

If he's stopped you 3k's on then I'd argue it. I don't think your passing shot at him was useful. It just escalates and hardens attitudes.

I note we only get the miserable cop stories on here. I came around a bend down country and found a cop parked down a bank behind some grass and didn't see him till it was too late. A bit of quick deceleration and a glance at the speedo and I knew I was in for a serious ticket I was just hoping it wasn't loss of bike.

He just made a hand signal to slow down and we both knew I'd been pinged. I gave him a thumbs up and he nodded back. That was probably the most surreal experience I've had with a cop after facing the speed gun.

I've also been pinged by arrogant arseholes who have very clearly had it in for bikers. The cop was going off his tree at me for pinging me at 111kmph while passing in a passing lane. He had a serious anger issue and was unbalanced in his approach.

A good cop story is the one you don't have cause they didn't stop you :yes: Agreed that be nice is the best option, sometimes they aren't in a nice mood but often the surprise of finding a rider being nice to them can change their attitude. Now if only I could remember to be nice :facepalm: