Mobile speed cameras

[JATZ]

Time to gather the K.B. legal team around.....

I'm curious as to the legality or otherwise of mobile speed cameras parked by the side of what passes for a motorway, here in Nelson.
There is several "No Stoping" signs, so I was wondering :scratch: Do they/are they aloud to stop on the side of the motorway in other parts of the country ?

Discuss....

[Mad-V2]

They are the police man! they can do whatever they want, whenever they want.
I have seen them around the country on the side of several motorways, so I gather they are allowed.
They are getting lazy these days, so lazy that when I asked a policeman to dust my house for prints after a burg, he said "Na"
Then I rung and complained about how lazy he was, he came back with his kit, took a few prints and then accused me of doing an insurance job as the prints were mine.
Our police force is legendary!!!!

I've even seen a police officer parked in a private entrance way, in a car fully painted in Jack Daniels advertising doing speed checks. WTF!!!!

[scumdog]

Time to gather the K.B. legal team around.....

I'm curious as to the legality or otherwise of mobile speed cameras parked by the side of what passes for a motorway, here in Nelson.
There is several "No Stoping" signs, so I was wondering :scratch: Do they/are they aloud to stop on the side of the motorway in other parts of the country ?

Discuss....


'No Stoping' huh? - well that's OK.

Now if the sign had said 'No Stopping' it would have been a different story...

[scumdog]

They are the police man! they can do whatever they want, whenever they want.
I have seen them around the country on the side of several motorways, so I gather they are allowed.
They are getting lazy these days, so lazy that when I asked a policeman to dust my house for prints after a burg, he said "Na"
Then I rung and complained about how lazy he was, he came back with his kit, took a few prints and then accused me of doing an insurance job as the prints were mine.
Our police force is legendary!!!!

I've even seen a police officer parked in a private entrance way, in a car fully painted in Jack Daniels advertising doing speed checks. WTF!!!!

Enjoy!:woohoo:

[Mad-V2]

Enjoy!:woohoo:

Please explain..........


'No Stoping' huh? - well that's OK.

Now if the sign had said 'No Stopping' it would have been a different story...


Please explain..........

[JATZ]

'No Stoping' huh? - well that's OK.

Now if the sign had said 'No Stopping' it would have been a different story...

Yeah O.k. point taken :facepalm:

But can YOU ! tell me if it's alright for the camera van to ignore the no stopping sign or are they just doing what ever the hell they like ?

[Scuba_Steve]

Yeah O.k. point taken :facepalm:

But can YOU ! tell me if it's alright for the camera van to ignore the no stopping sign or are they just doing what ever the hell they like ?

your not actually asking a cop the law are you???:blink: thats like asking a butcher about the finer points of ballet.

[FJRider]

Yeah O.k. point taken :facepalm:

But can YOU ! tell me if it's alright for the camera van to ignore the no stopping sign or are they just doing what ever the hell they like ?

In the course of their duty ... YEP ...

[JATZ]

In the course of their duty ... YEP ...

Cheers FJ, or is that Mr Rider ? :innocent:

It was just a question that had been bugging me.

[Mad-V2]

In the course of their duty? Doesn't that usually apply to things like speeding, running red lights or pulling people over?
The reason for no stopPing on motorways is, in case there is an emergency, emergency services can get through safely.
I'd hardly consider a speed camera van an emergency vehicle

[FJRider]

Cheers FJ, or is that Mr Rider ? :innocent:

It was just a question that had been bugging me.

How fast were you going when they pinged ya ... ???

[JATZ]

How fast were you going when they pinged ya ... ???

I very rarely speed, it's only a lill DR350 I ride and I generaly get where I want to go without breaking the law.
Honest :innocent:

[steve_t]

Not sure how it works around the rest of the country but whenever I see a mobile speed camera it's parked off the road either on the grass or sneakily behind a tree or on the embankment. I've never seen one on the roadside itself.
And yeah, the cops can probably park there if they want. That poor old guy that died after he hit the back of the parked cop car had hit the cop car when it was parked on yellow lines in the course of duty.

[Dadpole]

Please explain..........




Please explain..........

This could go international... :innocent:

[Mad-V2]

This could go international... :innocent:

Ha Ha yea "please explain" kinda stuck with me after living in Stralia



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4tZRZSGxcE

[NordieBoy]

In the course of their duty ... YEP ...

But the camera van isn't operated by a cop...

[Rcktfsh]

Just remember to give them a loud and long blast of your horn whenever passing, show your appreciation for their tireless revenue collecting oops I mean safety work.

[scumdog]

And yeah, the cops can probably park there if they want. That poor old guy that died after he hit the back of the parked cop car had hit the cop car when it was parked on yellow lines in the course of duty.

Nothing like telling only part of the story to make it seem more exciting eh...do you work for a news-paper??:blink:

[scumdog]

But the camera van isn't operated by a cop...
Don't ruin their rant by stating facts NB...

[Mad-V2]

I thought this was a relevant query and not a rant.
Good to see the KB "lawyers" are so helpful in answering relevant questions and not quick to point fingers at people :sick::shutup:

So in short, the OP must have been speeding because he is asking about speed camera placement and therefore doesn't deserve an educated answer, only a telling off.:facepalm:

It would be interesting to see if any people who actually know the answer to this will grow balls and chime in:Pokey:

[red mermaid]

Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004

Part 6 of this rule relates to parking.



1.8 General exceptions

(1) A person is not in breach of this rule if that person proves that—

(a) the act or omission complained of took place in response to a situation on a road; and

(b) the situation was not of the person's own making; and

(c) the act or omission was taken—

(i) to avoid the death or injury of a person; or

(ii) if the act or omission did not create a risk of death or injury or greater damage to any property, to avoid damage to any property.

(2) Subclause (1) does not apply if a court is considering, in proceedings for an offence specified in the Act, whether or not a person had complied with this rule.

(3) A person is not in breach of this rule if that person proves that the act or omission complained of—

(a) took place in compliance with the directions of an enforcement officer, a parking warden, a traffic signal, or a traffic sign; or

(b) in the case of an act or omission done by an enforcement officer or a parking warden, was necessary in the execution of the person's duty.

(4) A person is not in breach of clauses 2.1 to 2.9, 2.13, or 5.3, or Part 6, in relation to a vehicle, if that person proves that—

(a) the vehicle was, at the time of the act or omission complained of, actually engaged in a public work on a road; and

(b) the vehicle was being used on the road with due consideration for other road users; and

(c) the act or omission complained of was reasonably necessary for the purposes of that work; and

(d) he or she took all reasonable care to prevent the occurrence of any accident, mishap, collision, or damage, or any injury to or interference with any person, animal, or property arising because of the act or omission.

[FJRider]

But the camera van isn't operated by a cop...

Never let facts stand in the way of a good thread subject ... :corn:

[Guided_monkey]

But if in your 'honest' opinion if they have parked in an unsafe manner *555 them.

Just because they are authorised by law to park there, does not mean they can be unsafe. :yes:

[NordieBoy]

But if in your 'honest' opinion if they have parked in an unsafe manner *555 them.

Just because they are authorised by law to park there, does not mean they can be unsafe. :yes:

"There's this van with tinted windows that's been parked up for a few hours taking photos of kiddies in cars..."

[Berries]

"There's this van with tinted windows that's been parked up for a few hours taking photos of kiddies in cars..."
and i think the driver had a gun......

[Berries]

Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004

Part 6 of this rule relates to parking.

1.8 General exceptions

(3) A person is not in breach of this rule if that person proves that the act or omission complained of—

(b) in the case of an act or omission done by an enforcement officer or a parking warden, was necessary in the execution of the person's duty.

The problem with 'mobile' speed cameras is the amount of time they spend parked alongside a motorway in an area where parking is not allowed. It is the length of exposure to risk. To me this clause allows an enforcement officer or parking warden to stop where prohibited to carry out work, ie a warden to put a ticket on a car parked on no stopping lines or a cop to stop where he shouldn't when pulling someone over. These are short durations, not the four hours plus that a speed camera van might be parked somewhere dodgy. Like in Dunedin, between the motorway and an off ramp just where someone who isn't concentrating is going to smash in to them when they can't decide if they want that exit or not. Stick them behind guardrails by all means, but shit, that is just stupid placement.

There are genuine safety reasons why parking is banned on motorways. Seems quite off to then have a Police operation deliberately set up in this location putting everyone at risk, including the operator, for a few more $$$. I would have said it was just more easy money, but the vans stick out like dogs balls seeing as nobody else parks there so I can't see that they are all that productive. "So they are working" I hear from the back of the room........



(4) A person is not in breach of clauses 2.1 to 2.9, 2.13, or 5.3, or Part 6, in relation to a vehicle, if that person proves that—

(d) he or she took all reasonable care to prevent the occurrence of any accident, mishap, collision, or damage, or any injury to or interference with any person, animal, or property arising because of the act or omission.
Hmmm, if you park a camera van alongside the motorway within the clear zone and it is unprotected from approaching traffic then you have failed to take "all reasonable care".

[scumdog]

Hmmm, if you park a camera van alongside the motorway within the clear zone and it is unprotected from approaching traffic then you have failed to take "all reasonable care".


In YOUR opinion.

Take it to Court....

[Berries]

I should have said if you park a camera van alongside the motorway within the clear zone and it is unprotected from approaching traffic and you get hit by another vehicle, errant or otherwise, then you have failed to take "all reasonable care".

I wasn't talking about a ticket, if you get caught by that speed camera you deserve one for being unobservant. I was implying that parking there just because you can is not necessarily a bright move. First you have introduced a hazard in to an area that wasn't there previously, second you are causing a change in driver behaviour simply by being there, heavy braking and all that leading to a potential increase in conflict, and third some other goon is going to think it is ok to park in the same spot for a picnic because they have seen the van doing it.

It'll all be sweet until someone gets hurt.

[Mad-V2]

Your on the money there! Just because you can, doesn't mean it's safe or you should.
But as usual it will take some Innocent persons life to make people realise how unsafe it really is. Whats it called? "risk vs benefit factor" I believe.
Risk to public = Who cares
Benefit to revenue = Do what it takes
People who make and enforce laws should be the first to adhere to them, otherwise whats the point.
Fucking double standards!!

[p.dath]

Not sure how it works around the rest of the country but whenever I see a mobile speed camera it's parked off the road either on the grass or sneakily behind a tree or on the embankment. I've never seen one on the roadside itself.
And yeah, the cops can probably park there if they want. That poor old guy that died after he hit the back of the parked cop car had hit the cop car when it was parked on yellow lines in the course of duty.

I think this is generally the key - they park on the grass verge off the road.

However, let me also bring this legislation to your attention ("Government Roading Powers Act 1989 No 75"), which lists powers the NZTA has:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1989/0075/22.0/DLM173374.html

(7) For the purposes of exercising any function or performing any power in relation to the construction, maintenance, financial assistance, or control under this Act, the Agency may from time to time determine, either generally or in relation to any specified road or to any portion or side of any specified road, what part of a road is a carriageway, footway, water table, drain, dividing strip, traffic island, safety zone, plantation, verge, shoulder, parking space, curb, channel, or other thing, and every such determination of the Agency is final but may at any time be amended or revoked by the Agency

[rastuscat]

Just because they are authorised by law to park there, does not mean they can be unsafe. :yes:

Absolutely correct. The law provides a defence to parking, but not to dangerous parking.

So, per the OP, was the camera van parked dangerously? Or was it just parked illegally, under claim of an exemption?

Just like the Popos can be exempted from the speed limit in the execution of their duty, but not from driving dangerously.

Thanks to the mermaid for quoting the legislation. I was looking for it, but is was stuck in the mire of Brookers.

So there.

[scumdog]

Thanks to the mermaid for quoting the legislation. I was looking for it, but is was stuck in the mire of Brookers.

So there.

Yeah, ya gotta watch them Brookers mires...sticky-as:blink:

[JATZ]

So, per the OP, was the camera van parked dangerously? Or was it just parked illegally, under claim of an exemption?

No......
it was just parked on the side of the "motorway" (and i use that term loosely)
I was just wondering about the legality of it.
Thanks to squire mermaid for the clarification.
I guess I cant go and rip the driver out of his seat and make a citizens arrest next time I see him parked there :blink:

[NordieBoy]

No......
it was just parked on the side of the "motorway" (and i use that term loosely)

The signs just say it's a passing zone. "Keep left unless passing"...

[marty]

I thought this was a relevant query and not a rant.
Good to see the KB "lawyers" are so helpful in answering relevant questions and not quick to point fingers at people :sick::shutup:

So in short, the OP must have been speeding because he is asking about speed camera placement and therefore doesn't deserve an educated answer, only a telling off.:facepalm:

It would be interesting to see if any people who actually know the answer to this will grow balls and chime in:Pokey:

it's the fucking internet man. very little is relevant, including your expectation that you'll get an educated answer, even less so on KB.

[Mad-V2]

And I thought the info in this thread was going in the right direction to answering the op's question.
Unlike a lot of people here, I actually like to hear peoples opinions and views on current laws. Or how easily people roll over to be raped by the long cock of the law.
Sounds like quite a few of you actually believe that every police officer in New Zealand 100% upholds the law and would never abuse his/her powers.
Remember that people are people no matter what uniform they wear, everybody has a price whether they like to admit or not and YES there are lots of corrupt coppas out there who will fuck you over to make themselves look good or to cover their arse. I have seen first hand evidence of this twice in Wanganui, one drug dealer and one peeping tom. PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE PEOPLE

[Berries]

Playing the devils advocate here for a moment, whether they are parked legally or not speed cameras are hardly fucking people over. You have to be breaking the law to get photographed so it is a bit different to being framed for something you didn't do.

[Mad-V2]

It's not about complaining about breaking the law, it's about whether or not it is worth parking a speed camera van in a place you should normally not stop due to the safety of other road users.
If someone crashed due to the van being there, would the van driver be accountable for being parked where he shouldn't really be?

[Berries]

It's not about complaining about breaking the law, it's about whether or not it is worth parking a speed camera van in a place you should normally not stop due to the safety of other road users.
I would suggest that as speed cameras are supposed to be about improving road safety they should not be parked in a place where other road users are prohibited from parking for safety reasons and that the exception quoted from the Road User Rule was not intended for this kind of longer term use.


If someone crashed due to the van being there, would the van driver be accountable for being parked where he shouldn't really be?
I couldn't answer that. But going back to the original motorway issue, if there was a totally unrelated crash and the van ended up getting hit leading to an increase in injury severity then I would hope that questions are asked as to why it was parked there.

[Jack Miller]

Playing the devils advocate here for a moment, whether they are parked legally or not speed cameras are hardly fucking people over. You have to be breaking the law to get photographed so it is a bit different to being framed for something you didn't do.

Unless the speed camera is calibrated wrong and ticketing innocents as has been proven to have happened in Australia

[Jack Miller]

Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004
1.8 General exceptions
(1) A person is not in breach of this rule if that person proves that ...
(ii) the act or omission did not create a risk of death or injury...
(3) A person is not in breach of this rule if that person proves that the act or omission complained of ...
[B](b) in the case of an act or omission done by an enforcement officer or a parking warden, was necessary in the execution of the person's duty.

The person parking the van illegally to operate a speed camera is guilty. If anyone pressed charges the parker/operator would have to prove it wasn't risky and was necessary to avoid conviction. But who would bother to press charges?

[Mad-V2]

If I was in an accident caused by a speed camera being parked illegally, I would press charges. Same as if it was any other vehicle on the road

Next time ya see one parked illegally, call a tow truck.

[scumdog]

Next time ya see one parked illegally, call a tow truck.


Pffft, like they would take any notice of ya...

Troll points: 2.3
Must try harder.

[Jack Miller]

How fast were you going when they pinged ya ... ???

You're have a nastily suspicious mind don't you. At least apply some balance to your suspicious nature - it's not always the biker at fault and apparently it wasn't in this case. When are you going to accept that the cops aren't squeaky clean. They do issue tickets illegally. It is perfectly legitimate for bikers, who are often the victims of this arrogant illegal bullying, to question cops' tactics when they appear to be illegal. Jumping to the conclusion that the biker was at fault is just bigotry.

[Jack Miller]

Next time ya see one parked illegally, call a tow truck.

Pffft, like they would take any notice of ya...

Time to buy a tow truck methinks.

[FJRider]

You're have a nastily suspicious mind don't you. At least apply some balance to your suspicious nature - it's not always the biker at fault and apparently it wasn't in this case. When are you going to accept that the cops aren't squeaky clean. They do issue tickets illegally. It is perfectly legitimate for bikers, who are often the victims of this arrogant illegal bullying, to question cops' tactics when they appear to be illegal. Jumping to the conclusion that the biker was at fault is just bigotry.

It's true I am ... Over the years I have been both accused ... and proved to be wrong. Sadly more of the former ... than the latter ... :facepalm:

Often though, in the case of the former ... the accusations were made by more suspicious minds than mine... and THEY were found to be wrong ..

I HAVE been the subject of "non squeaking" cop .. and appropiate action was taken ... (hand held GPS units do have their uses... as evidence to their BOSS [who knew me well] )

And if we didn't jump to conclusions ... we'd never get any exercise.

By the way ... conclusion is when truth is proved ... not just claimed.

[Berries]

Unless the speed camera is calibrated wrong and ticketing innocents as has been proven to have happened in Australia
Yeah sorry, I forgot about that particular what if in my comment about corrupt policemen purposefully setting out "to fuck people over" :facepalm:

I am not sure what range the Australians can get out of their speed cameras, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't reach Nelson.