Speeding tickets. Why the angst?

[rastuscat]

The only logical conclusion to this thinking is that everyone must slow down until they are stopped.

No, you're right, and I'm wrong.

I've said it because I've tried to show some common ground, and you've consistently attacked even the grounds on which we appear to agree.

Best wishes from the real world.

[wingnutt]

Wrote a rambling note about speeding tickets on another thread, then decided it was off topic so deleted it. It was the POP radar detector thread.

It caused me to ponder why it's such an emotive issue. Exceed the tolerance applied to the legal limit, get a ticket, isn't that just how the law works? Why so much grief about it?

Sheesh.

For me, there is a sense that fairness, and common sense, has gone out the window a bit, when traffic tickets are issued these days, and when tickets get issued for what’s perceived as trivial, it’s probably why traffic officers have been given the label revenue collectors.

For instance, being issued with a ticket, for a 111kph, on a down hill slope, in the middle of nowhere, early morning, no traffic, fine dry conditions, I wasn’t being silly, is just nitpicking stupidity. Yes technically I was over the limit, but hey, a little bit of common sense could have gone a long way, but no, a fine for what I still perceive as for bugger all.

I do appreciate that they have to put up with some real dickheads, and I understand that officers have to follow instructions from their corporate leaders, who lets face it, all they think about is their dicks, and how much more money they can screw us for.

I also understand they have aresholes in their midst like all other organizations, but mainly as an old fart, if I’m stopped, I expect to be treated with humanity and respect, and any officer, who treats me otherwise, can expect it back by the shovel full

All in all though, I’m glad the traffic boys and girls are out there, it is safer because of them, but maybe if they were allowed to use their discretion a bit more, we would see an easing of nitpicking fines.

[Road kill]

A lot of 'conclusion-jumping' there Jack - your 'logical conclusion' may well turn out to be an opinion.

And a bit of balance might not go amiss.:yes:

(You're not really Lou Girardin are you????):blink:

Fuck,,,those were the days:violin::laugh:

[scumdog]

Fuck,,,those were the days:violin::laugh:

And at the end of it all Lou and I were OK despite the slagging off and constant denigrating & 'cop-bashing' etc.

He was good enough to call in and see me when he was down this way, nice guy.

[Jack Miller]

No, you're right, and I'm wrong.

I've said it because I've tried to show some common ground, and you've consistently attacked even the grounds on which we appear to agree.

Best wishes from the real world.

There is an answer to the angst caused by ticketing against the speed limit, many clues to it are in this thread, and it is not as trivial as you imply.

Please consider this: In one year almost 900000 speeding tickets were issued in NZ - an equivalent of 27% of the population. What sort of "crime" is so universal that 27% of the population is convicted of it? Are so many people really so criminal?

[rastuscat]

There is an answer to the angst caused by ticketing against the speed limit, many clues to it are in this thread, and it is not as trivial as you imply.

Please consider this: In one year almost 900000 speeding tickets were issued in NZ - an equivalent of 27% of the population. What sort of "crime" is so universal that 27% of the population is convicted of it? Are so many people really so criminal?

It's not a crime. It's an infringement. Still, you've not let the facts stand in the way of a good posting so far, so why change now. :violin:

We don't paint people who get tickets as criminals, maybe you should stop too.

Given that so many people haven't received a speed ticket, I guess that means there are a lot of slow learners out there.

[Parlane]

Given that so many people haven't received a speed ticket, I guess that means there are a lot of slow learners out there.

Statistics just haven't caught up to them yet.

[Ocean1]

It's not a crime. It's an infringement. Still, you've not let the facts stand in the way of a good posting so far, so why change now. :violin:

We don't paint people who get tickets as criminals, maybe you should stop too.

Given that so many people haven't received a speed ticket, I guess that means there are a lot of slow learners out there.

Weak. He's raised a valid point, when most of the population break a rule every day and a quarter of them get fined or have their freedom restricted for doing so each year there's really only one conclusion. The rule's a bad one.

[Jack Miller]

It's not a crime. It's an infringement. We don't paint people who get tickets as criminals,

If they disagree you prosecute them and make them defend themselves in court in front of a Judge. What is that if not treating them as criminals?

[Zedder]

It's not a crime. It's an infringement. Still, you've not let the facts stand in the way of a good posting so far, so why change now. :violin:

We don't paint people who get tickets as criminals, maybe you should stop too.

Given that so many people haven't received a speed ticket, I guess that means there are a lot of slow learners out there.

Unfortunately I don't think it would matter what you say Rtc, the mere fact that you're a traffic cop to some people means you're on "the other side" and are fighting an uphill battle from the start.

[Parlane]

If they disagree you prosecute them and make them defend themselves in court in front of a Judge. What is that if not treating them as criminals?

It's actually worse than a criminal charge. You are guilty until proven innocent. Which I'm sure you know very well Jack.

(I've read your case related thread, no need to go into it all again)

[Scuba_Steve]

It's not a crime.

it's not???:scratch:

crime |krīm|
noun
an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law : shoplifting was a serious crime.
• illegal activities : the victims of crime.
• an action or activity that, although not illegal, is considered to be evil, shameful, or wrong : they condemned apartheid as a crime against humanity | it's a crime to keep a creature like Willy in a tank.

[Parlane]

Unfortunately I don't think it would matter what you say Rtc, the mere fact that you're a traffic cop to some people means you're on "the other side" and are fighting an uphill battle from the start.

I think most of us see RC as more than just "the other side". I doubt even Jack would disagree.

[rastuscat]

If they disagree you prosecute them and make them defend themselves in court in front of a Judge.

I've never MADE anyone defend themselves of anything. It's entirely their choice.


What is that if not treating them as criminals?

Criminals tend to have their wrists warmed with bracelets. Can't recall the last time I banged someone up for a traffic infringement.

[rastuscat]

Weak. He's raised a valid point, when most of the population break a rule every day and a quarter of them get fined or have their freedom restricted for doing so each year there's really only one conclusion. The rule's a bad one.

Yup, sorry, it was weak, and he does have a valid point.

Damn, let myself down there.:shit:

[scumdog]

There is an answer to the angst caused by ticketing against the speed limit, many clues to it are in this thread, and it is not as trivial as you imply.

Please consider this: In one year almost 900000 speeding tickets were issued in NZ - an equivalent of 27% of the population. What sort of "crime" is so universal that 27% of the population is convicted of it? Are so many people really so criminal?

Ahem, using that logic: I was recently told almost 12,000,000 Maccas burgers were sold in one year, equivalent to about three times the population.

What happened to the other two-thirds of the population???:blink:

I suspect that the '27%' you mention includes a shitload of people that got more than one ticket for speeding (there must be - I didn't get one)

So in fact it could have been 11.5% or less couldn't it?? couldn't it?

Are you a politician?

Or a full time troll?

Or both?

But keep going, I'm entertained, pulling wings off flies has lost its appeal since you started on KB!!:woohoo:

[scumdog]

it's not???:scratch:

crime |krīm|
noun
an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law : shoplifting was a serious crime.
• illegal activities : the victims of crime.
• an action or activity that, although not illegal, is considered to be evil, shameful, or wrong : they condemned apartheid as a crime against humanity | it's a crime to keep a creature like Willy in a tank.

Ah c'mon skoobersteve, check out what constitutes a 'crime' under NZ law...

[rastuscat]

It's actually worse than a criminal charge. You are guilty until proven innocent. Which I'm sure you know very well Jack.

Nope, almost but not quite right.

A person is only guilty of an infringement upon having been declared so by a JP or judge, or having paid the fine. Until then it is simply an allegation.

But I see your point. In the real world, taking a day off to sit in court and defend a ticket is onerous. I'm sure lots of people just pay the fine because it's easier to do that than invoke their rights.

[scumdog]

Weak. He's raised a valid point, when most of the population break a rule every day and a quarter of them get fined or have their freedom restricted for doing so each year there's really only one conclusion. The rule's a bad one.

Only in the eyes of those affected by it some would say...


But can you direct me to the facts that state 'a quarter of the population get fined or have their freedom restricted' please??:blink:

[ducatilover]

If they disagree you prosecute them and make them defend themselves in court in front of a Judge. What is that if not treating them as criminals?

What's wrong with that? The safety of the general populace isn't to be taken lightly.

[scumdog]

Given that so many people haven't received a speed ticket, I guess that means there are a lot of slow learners out there.

Tactful

Very tactful

I would have said dumb-arses.

[Parlane]

Nope, almost but not quite right.

A person is only guilty of an infringement upon having been declared so by a JP or judge, or having paid the fine. Until then it is simply an allegation.

But I see your point. In the real world, taking a day off to sit in court and defend a ticket is onerous. I'm sure lots of people just pay the fine because it's easier to do that than invoke their rights.

Yep, I would lose more than the cost of the ticket by not going to work. And my pride isn't that big. Also, I normally deserve them ;)

I don't like the fact that "infringements" against you are upheld by the officer's word against yours. And there has definitely been cases where the officers word was not the truth. (Sucks to be that guy)

[scumdog]

Yep, I would lose more than the cost of the ticket by not going to work. And my pride isn't that big. Also, I normally deserve them ;)

I don't like the fact that "infringements" against you are upheld by the officer's word against yours. And there has definitely been cases where the officers word was not the truth. (Sucks to be that guy)

Some of us try to balance that up with heaps of compliance tickets, warnings and tickets for speeds reasonably over the limit.

But don't tell others that.:shutup:

[Parlane]

Some of us try to balance that up with heaps of compliance tickets, warnings and tickets for speeds reasonably over the limit.

But don't tell others that.:shutup:

No one would believe me if I did! :innocent:

[Scuba_Steve]

I suspect that the '27%' you mention includes a shitload of people that got more than one ticket for speeding (there must be - I didn't get one)

So in fact it could have been 11.5% or less couldn't it?? couldn't it?


What has also failed to be taken into calculation tho is not all NZ population drive I'd guess only 40-60%??? (Don't know where to find that info) So a good percentage of the driving population must get scamed

Ah c'mon skoobersteve, check out what constitutes a 'crime' under NZ law...
This what you after...
crime means an offence for which the offender may be proceeded against by indictment


Nope, almost but not quite right.

A person is only guilty of an infringement upon having been declared so by a JP or judge, or having paid the fine. Until then it is simply an allegation.

But I see your point. In the real world, taking a day off to sit in court and defend a ticket is onerous. I'm sure lots of people just pay the fine because it's easier to do that than invoke their rights.
Must be another difference between the 2 Islands, it's almost impossible to walk into a court innocent up here, but like I've said before IMO the South Island does still have some justice left in the system... Don't go losing it ay ;)

[Ocean1]

Only in the eyes of those affected by it some would say...


But can you direct me to the facts that state 'a quarter of the population get fined or have their freedom restricted' please??:blink:

Can't be fuckt. Let's put it to the vote instead, eh? All those who were affected by heavy handed nitpickery last year vs those who think progressively onerous enforcement's a good idea.

[rastuscat]

Can't be fuckt. Let's put it to the vote instead, eh? All those who were affected by heavy handed nitpickery last year vs those who think progressively onerous enforcement's a good idea.

Post your results alongside a poll asking Popos how many wankers they have had to deal with who have claimed to be innocent of the things they have just been seen doing.

Getting a bit over this.

[ducatilover]

This thread blows.
Scummy has put the cops down more than everyone else. :facepalm:

Fucking sensible KB.

[Jack Miller]

can you direct me to the facts that state 'a quarter of the population get fined or have their freedom restricted' please??:blink:
"Police ticket issuance peaked at the equivalent of 27% of the population (over 15 years) in 2004"
Since the commencement of the 2010 Road Safety Strategy in 2003 the following numbers of tickets have been issued:
2003 825000
2004 875000
2005 740000
2006 720000
2007 690000
2008 770000
"Road safety is the only safety field in New Zealand treated as a crime. Each year Police issue speeding tickets to the equivalent of 20% of the population over 15 years old. ...What sort of 'crime' is so universal that 20% of the population has committed it each year? When even the then Commissioner of Police (Rob Robinson) unintentionally becomes an 'offender' ..."
Saving Ourselves - A Discussion Paper on Issues for the 2020 New Zealand Land Transport Safety Strategy. September 2009. Automobile Association.

[scumdog]

"Police ticket issuance peaked at the equivalent of 27% of the population (over 15 years) in 2004"
Since the commencement of the 2010 Road Safety Strategy in 2003 the following numbers of tickets have been issued:
2003 825000
2004 875000
2005 740000
2006 720000
2007 690000
2008 770000
"Road safety is the only safety field in New Zealand treated as a crime. Each year Police issue speeding tickets to the equivalent of 20% of the population over 15 years old. ...What sort of 'crime' is so universal that 20% of the population has committed it each year? When even the then Commissioner of Police (Rob Robinson) unintentionally becomes an 'offender' ..."
Saving Ourselves - A Discussion Paper on Issues for the 2020 New Zealand Land Transport Safety Strategy. September 2009. Automobile Association.

Yeah, lets just ignore the 'equivalent' part eh....

Sheesh, it's hard to get good trolls these days...:facepalm:

[Parlane]

"Police ticket issuance peaked at the equivalent of 27% of the population (over 15 years) in 2004"
Since the commencement of the 2010 Road Safety Strategy in 2003 the following numbers of tickets have been issued:
2003 825000
2004 875000
2005 740000
2006 720000
2007 690000
2008 770000
"Road safety is the only safety field in New Zealand treated as a crime. Each year Police issue speeding tickets to the equivalent of 20% of the population over 15 years old. ...What sort of 'crime' is so universal that 20% of the population has committed it each year? When even the then Commissioner of Police (Rob Robinson) unintentionally becomes an 'offender' ..."
Saving Ourselves - A Discussion Paper on Issues for the 2020 New Zealand Land Transport Safety Strategy. September 2009. Automobile Association.

Don't forget Helen Clarke's driver's fun speeding times

[scumdog]

This thread blows.
Scummy has put the cops down more than everyone else. :facepalm:

Fucking sensible KB.



NIDGAF!!:woohoo::wings::killingme:whistle:

[ducatilover]

Yeah, lets just ignore the 'equivalent' part eh....

Sheesh, it's hard to get good trolls these days...:facepalm:

:facepalm: This is no fun

Let's start one about uppity lawyers.

[Jack Miller]

Unfortunately I don't think it would matter what you say Rtc, the mere fact that you're a traffic cop to some people means you're on "the other side" and are fighting an uphill battle from the start.

I agree that deploying crime and punishment methodologies on road safety is fundamentally flawed and that therefore the Highway Patrol is on a hiding to nothing. As the AA put it: "Police cannot prevent many crashes because many crashes are not caused by illegal activity." However, I don't think they're
on the other side apart from a few exceptions like ticketing against the speed limit in overtaking lanes which actually makes things worse and is arguably against their own policy anyway. I don't think Rtc is one of those who do make things worse and he has many positive ideas & thoughts. So I won't agree that Rtc is on the other side, but if he wants to really do something effective towards rider safety he has to get out of the crime & punishment system. I've tried to encourage him to carve out his own path and think he could make a difference if he did.

[Jack Miller]

Yeah, lets just ignore the 'equivalent' part eh....

Or let's not ignore it, whatever the exact figure is it is enough for Rtc to perceive a lot of angst about it.

What I ask you not to ignore but rather to think about is this bit:

Road safety is the only safety field in New Zealand treated as a crime.

[scumdog]

Or let's not ignore it, whatever the exact figure is it is enough for Rtc to perceive a lot of angst about it.

What I ask you not to ignore but rather to think about is this bit:

I've got a bit too:

If you want to kill somebody do with a vehicle on the road.

The sentence is way lighter than if you kill them any other way.

And another bit: why is it that those that complain the most about traffic policing shortfalls in NZ have never worked for Police?

And are never likely to.

Yet they still know how it SHOULD be done.

Why don't they join and 'make a difference'.

Probably because it's too hard and they know they couldn't.

So in the meantime the rastuscats of the world and I do our best.

And enjoy sparring with the 'know-alls/know nothings':woohoo:

[ducatilover]

What I ask you not to ignore but rather to think about is this bit:

So, if you poison someone, main someone with a buzz saw because you have set it up wrong and it exploded, kill people by accident (running past a grandmother on a bridge and she happens to plummet to her death), it's not going to court?


Also may be worth, picture this, these things called cars, moving at xxxkm/h and weighing 1500kg (dirver, petrol, Honda Civic type thing). That's a dangerous thing when going wrong. Break the law, you're breaking the law and endangering people.

Where's the problem?

[ducatilover]

I've got a bit too:

If you want to kill somebody do with a vehicle on the road.

The sentence is way lighter than if you kill them any other way.

And another bit: why is it that those that complain the most about traffic policing shortfalls in NZ have never worked for Police?

And are never likely to.

Yet they still know how it SHOULD be done.

Why don't they join and 'make a difference'.

Probably because it's too hard and they know they couldn't.

So in the meantime the rastuscats of the world and I do our best.

And enjoy sparring with the 'know-alls/know nothings':woohoo:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/5151905/Death-shatters-family

Matt was a close mate of mine, he got killed by a stop sign runner on a clear road (less than 2km from my house). The chap who hit his car/killed him didn't get time, he got home detention and told to pay $5000 in reparations. :gob:

Apparently, one of the best people I have ever met is only worth $5k, teh justice peoples said so.

Is that your cup of tea Jack?

[Jantar]

....

Probably because it's too hard and they know they couldn't.

....

Got it in One. I couldn't do the job you guys do, and I don't just mean the traffic work either.

[Jack Miller]

So, if you poison someone, main someone with a buzz saw because you have set it up wrong and it exploded, kill people by accident (running past a grandmother on a bridge and she happens to plummet to her death), it's not going to court?

Good point! As soon as the bad outcome occurs the Justice system steps in and gets involved. Except with road safety where the system gets involved before the bad outcome occurs. Maybe it is this "pre-emptive strike" approach that causes the angst.

[Berries]

Getting a bit over this.
I think you'll find that you started it.

Again.

[ducatilover]

Good point! As soon as the bad outcome occurs the Justice system steps in and gets involved. Except with road safety where the system gets involved before the bad outcome occurs. Maybe it is this "pre-emptive strike" approach that causes the angst.

I think it's a bad attitude, what many like to call "human nature" and not wanting to admit they are wrong (effectively belittling themselves) which I can understand to a point. When faced with a ticket, you are wrong and doing wrong, when you're punished you are not the dominant one in the situation and as humans, we don't like that (the lesser intelligent ones don't)

[superman]

Speeding tickets are all good. :yes:

No matter how good a rider/driver you think you are, think about the worst people at driving/riding you know of and how you might feel having them fly about at whatever speed they wish. As said earlier, if someone is willing to go at 120km/h on a straight, who knows how much tyre chirping goes on in corners. Speeding tickets at least tell an offender to slow down even if they are being "safe". You can't take speed limits to be what the best drivers can do the road at, rather the speed is taken to be marginally safe yet quick enough for the general population to get about.

Perhaps we could make the license tests much more in-depth and difficult, increase the education of riders/drivers and then maybe the speed limits could be increased in certain areas. Particularly the motorway... Alas the general population will continue to treat driving as something that doesn't need much attention and people will continue to die due to stupid decisions.

[Jack Miller]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/5151905/Death-shatters-family

Matt was a close mate of mine, he got killed by a stop sign runner on a clear road (less than 2km from my house). The chap who hit his car/killed him didn't get time, he got home detention and told to pay $5000 in reparations. :gob:

Apparently, one of the best people I have ever met is only worth $5k, teh justice peoples said so.

Is that your cup of tea Jack?

Absolutely not. And the judge that fined Lenihan $250 for his part in Brown's death was similarly unjust. Also I have no problem with cops issuing tickets for running stop signs and I don't think many others do either - it doesn't cause the angst Rtc perceives (quite rightly imo) in relation to the current near-zero-tolerance enforcement of an arbitrary speed limit.

Rtc is trying to understand what causes this particular angst. It seems to me that there are good clues towards the answer in this thread for those who study it with a mind that is open to the possibility that near-zero-tolerance enforcement of an arbitrary speed limit is, at some basic human level, simply wrong.

[Jantar]

Speeding tickets are all good. :yes:

No matter how good a rider/driver you think you are, think about the worst people at driving/riding you know of and how you might feel having them fly about at whatever speed they wish. .......

As has already been pointed out. In those places where the speed limit has been raised, the average speed has risen only slightly, and the accident rate has dropped. Most people learn to drive to the conditions and spend more time watching the road and less time watching their speedometers.

No-one has suggested that anyone should be able to drive at whatever speed they wish, just that they should be permitted to drive to the conditions.

[ducatilover]

Speeding tickets are all good. :yes:

No matter how good a rider/driver you think you are, think about the worst people at driving/riding you know of and how you might feel having them fly about at whatever speed they wish. As said earlier, if someone is willing to go at 120km/h on a straight, who knows how much tyre chirping goes on in corners. Speeding tickets at least tell an offender to slow down even if they are being "safe". You can't take speed limits to be what the best drivers can do the road at, rather the speed is taken to be marginally safe yet quick enough for the general population to get about.

Perhaps we could make the license tests much more in-depth and difficult, increase the education of riders/drivers and then maybe the speed limits could be increased in certain areas. Particularly the motorway... Alas the general population will continue to treat driving as something that doesn't need much attention and people will continue to die due to stupid decisions. The licencing system is crap, you have to display a pittance of skill, clutch operation (sort of...)...able to almost park and navigate am intersection.
Nothing on avoiding other idiots, nothing on how to control a vehicle of any sort. I hate the system in place.


Absolutely not. And the judge that fined Lenihan $250 for his part in Brown's death was similarly unjust. Also I have no problem with cops issuing tickets for running stop signs and I don't think many others do either - it doesn't cause the angst Rtc perceives (quite rightly imo) in relation to the current near-zero-tolerance enforcement of an arbitrary speed limit.

Rtc is trying to understand what causes this particular angst. It seems to me that there are good clues towards the answer in this thread for those who study it with a mind that is open to the possibility that near-zero-tolerance enforcement of an arbitrary speed limit is, at some basic human level, simply wrong.
I see, you're against a near zero tolerance thing? Understandable. There are a lot of factors that are not considered with a near zero speeding allowance, mechanical error, parallax error etc
But, I myself can keep my speedo on 100/110kp/h happily with no problems at all.
If we focused on better training for the sheeple, we would have less need for these angrily received speeding tickets.

[Jack Miller]

No matter how good a rider/driver you think you are, think about the worst people at driving/riding you know of and how you might feel having them fly about at whatever speed they wish.

Good point. Rtc is the angst you are trying to understand related to tickets issued for "too fast for the conditions," "Careless/reckless speed" etc or simply "exceeding the speed limit." I've been assuming you're interested in the angst related to the ticketing a few ks over on good roads in good conditions. That's certainly where I see all the angst. I doubt there's much angst felt about ticketing "the worst prople driving/riding ... at whatever speed they wish."

[Jack Miller]

But, I myself can keep my speedo on 100/110kp/h happily with no problems at all. So you'll get a ticket if you pick a weekend they're enforcing at 104.

[ducatilover]

So you'll get a ticket if you pick a weekend they're enforcing at 104.

No, because I'll drive/ride at 100 on the roads where there will be law enforcement chaps.
If I do get a ticket, I'll accept I was breaking the speed limit. Interesting fact, I haven't had a speeding ticket, ever.

[Jack Miller]

When faced with a ticket, you are wrong and doing wrong,
Not necessarily.

[ducatilover]

Not necessarily.

I'll re-phrase that.
When speeding and faced with a ticket for speeding, you're doing wrong.
I thought you'd get the idea.

[Jack Miller]

No, because I'll drive/ride at 100 on the roads where there will be law enforcement chaps.
If I do get a ticket, I'll accept I was breaking the speed limit. Interesting fact, I haven't had a speeding ticket, ever.

Sorry, thought you meant you could keep your speed somewhere between 100 & 110 no problems at all. Didn't realise you meant you could keep it exactly on one or the other.

Interesting fact, I've had a few speeding tickets, fought them all, and got off them all.

BTW, how do you know where the enforcement chaps will be?

[Jack Miller]

I'll re-phrase that.
When speeding and faced with a ticket for speeding, you're doing wrong.
I thought you'd get the idea.

Still not necessarily. The Road User Rule provides a number of exceptions where it is not wrong to exceed the speed limit yet the Police sometimes still try and issue tickets in those circumstances.

[ducatilover]

Sorry, thought you meant you could keep your speed somewhere between 100 & 110 no problems at all. Didn't realise you meant you could keep it exactly on one or the other.
I can drive/ride without my speedo going over 100 if I want, it isn't hard and doesn't require constant speedo checking.


Interesting fact, I've had a few speeding tickets, fought them all, and got off them all. Examples? I'd like to know what speeds/conditions etc etc etc. Quite interested.


BTW, how do you know where the enforcement chaps will be?

I know a few roads that are not patrolled due to the complete lack of traffic, I know where the highway patrol route goes (in a particular area or two). Good roads too, if one isn't a muppet on them.


Still not necessarily. The Road User Rule provides a number of exceptions where it is not wrong to exceed the speed limit yet the Police sometimes still try and issue tickets in those circumstances.
I was not aware of these, I stand/sit/type corrected.

[Jack Miller]

Examples? I'd like to know what speeds/conditions etc etc etc. Quite interested.
I only ever exceed the speed limit when overtaking and I only overtake where I have full visibility throughout the entire maneuver and conditions are safe. So all examples (and it's only three) are for that. I have a very detailed, thorough and streamlined process for getting off that particular circumstance reinforced with a swathe of research undermining the methods and technologies deployed by the enforcers in general. It's never yet gone to court. My approach is such that any enforcer that wanted to take it that far would almost certainly have to lie about some aspect to get it there, which would be very risky for them. Fastest was 127kph.


I know where the highway patrol route goes
How?

[rastuscat]

Still not necessarily. The Road User Rule provides a number of exceptions where it is not wrong to exceed the speed limit yet the Police sometimes still try and issue tickets in those circumstances.

Please give examples of the RUR sections that provide an exemption from the speed limit.

[Berries]

Ah don't encourage him. It was in his hello, welcome and I have serious issues thread -http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/138631-All-charges-dropped

[rastuscat]

Ah don't encourage him. It was in his hello, welcome and I have serious issues thread -http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/138631-All-charges-dropped

That's the problem, quoting one part of a law ignores the rest of it.

I won't even bother arguing the rule on that one, it provides no such exemption unless you read it with one eye closed.

There's not much doubt he has serious issues.

[rastuscat]

I only ever exceed the speed limit when overtaking and I only overtake where I have full visibility throughout the entire maneuver and conditions are safe. So all examples (and it's only three) are for that. I have a very detailed, thorough and streamlined process for getting off that particular circumstance reinforced with a swathe of research undermining the methods and technologies deployed by the enforcers in general. It's never yet gone to court. My approach is such that any enforcer that wanted to take it that far would almost certainly have to lie about some aspect to get it there, which would be very risky for them. Fastest was 127kph.

No wonder you have so many complaints about Popos setting up speed traps on passing lanes.

[Ocean1]

Post your results alongside a poll asking Popos how many wankers they have had to deal with who have claimed to be innocent of the things they have just been seen doing.

Getting a bit over this.

The other half used to work in an ED, and motorcycles were death traps. Now she rides one. The last place I'd go for an unprejudiced view of traffic compliance issues is a traffic officer, your just too close to the problem.

There's a noticable trend here also; those who argue for rigid conformity, (professionals and otherwise) seem to be the ones denegrating the driving skills of a significant portion of the road going public. They might be right, (although accident numbers suggest otherwise) but the point is all those idiots have a right to be there, and pinging them for 10k over the limit is simply ridiculous, speed has a very tenuous relationship to safety on the road.

Again, authority does not mean a correct assesment of the best policy, just the power to have that policy stick. It does often mean, though a somewhat arrogant assumption of superiority of opinion. The vote thing was an attempt to invite the official contingent to consider the possibility that the majority's opinion on the speed matter might count for more than the official one. you missed that huh?

[Scuba_Steve]

I can drive/ride without my speedo going over 100 if I want, it isn't hard and doesn't require constant speedo checking.


You can??? :blink:. Then you must either have cruise control, be riding in non 100km/h areas or be impeding the flow of traffic, especially if your speedo for example is 10% out & someone elses is only 1% another problem with the speed scam.
Someone could be sitting on 100km/h "being legal" (to their knowledge) yet the person following could be on 85km/h & getting pissed off, he does 120km/h to get past quickly, safely & the disco starts

[Jack Miller]

Ah don't encourage him. It was in his hello, welcome and I have serious issues thread -http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/138631-All-charges-dropped

I agree. I'm really really disappointed that rastuscat doesn't already know the exceptions written into the Road User Rule - his job of the last many years is based on the Rule, and if that wasn't enough I did give more than a few clues in my original post that was months ago. And still he doesn't know.

he's simply wrong when he says:
the rule ... provides no such exemption unless you read it with one eye closed. and I've got the acquittals to prove it.

And yes rastuscat, ticketing in passing lanes is a serious issue. It's even against Police policy as you well know, if only because I've told you so often.

I give up.

[Berg]

I've got a bit too:

If you want to kill somebody do with a vehicle on the road.

The sentence is way lighter than if you kill them any other way.

And another bit: why is it that those that complain the most about traffic policing shortfalls in NZ have never worked for Police?

And are never likely to.

Yet they still know how it SHOULD be done.

Why don't they join and 'make a difference'.

Probably because it's too hard and they know they couldn't.

So in the meantime the rastuscats of the world and I do our best.

And enjoy sparring with the 'know-alls/know nothings':woohoo:

Add me to the list of people trying to do the best for road safety out there:Police:

[Parlane]

Add me to the list of people trying to do the best for road safety out there:Police:

A third officer of the law? I'm not sure there is enough room on KB!

[Berg]

A third officer of the law? I'm not sure there is enough room on KB!
Not as experianced as the other two but doing my bit towards road safety:innocent:

[jellywrestler]

But, I myself can keep my speedo on 100/110kp/h happily with no problems at all.
Who says your speedo is accurate? They've recently removed that bit from the Warrant of Fitness check so we're all driving around with speedos that simply function, not neccesarily accurately, yet they'll ticket with a 4% tolerance at times.
The front tyre on one of my bikes loses 7% of its' outside diameter between new and when it's worn but still legal tread depth, so what is my correct speed at both points?

you sometimes see those roadside speed readers but i've only once seen one in a 100kmh area so i can't even check it on that....

[Parlane]

Not as experianced as the other two but doing my bit towards road safety:innocent:

Hopefully experience isn't judged by how many tickets you have written out :innocent:

How new are you to the force? And what do you find yourself giving out the most tickets for? Kapati Coast must be a bit different than a big CBD.

[Berg]

Hopefully experience isn't judged by how many tickets you have written out :innocent:

How new are you to the force? And what do you find yourself giving out the most tickets for? Kapati Coast must be a bit different than a big CBD.
Done 5 years now. Written my fair share of tickets but bugger all for speeding. I spend most of my time doing mechanical inspections for serious crash, CVIU, traffic etc. My pet hate, no complyance tickets are tailgating, failing to indicate, not stopping for stop signs etc.
As for working in Kapiti, my range is a bit bigger than that. I cover Wairarapa, Wgtn, Palmy etc as well

[Scuba_Steve]

Not as experianced as the other two but doing my bit towards road safety:innocent:

I do my bit for road safety too, keep my eyes off the speedo & on the road, report slow drivers & those whom can't keep left (only on the website) & don't crash.

[Scuba_Steve]

My pet hate, no complyance tickets are tailgating.

Thats usually a result/side-effect of someone impeding the flow of traffic.

[Berg]

Thats usually a result/side-effect of someone impeding the flow of traffic.
Not in Wgtn it's not. You could be doing 150kph here and some tosser would still be trying to drive through you from behind.

[Scuba_Steve]

Not in Wgtn it's not. You could be doing 150kph here and some tosser would still be trying to drive through you from behind.

up the Kapiti it is, some wanker upfront is almost always going 60-80 in the 100km/h zone.

[Parlane]

Thats usually a result/side-effect of someone impeding the flow of traffic.

Or slipstreaming and getting ready to pass :innocent:

[Parlane]

up the Kapiti it is, some wanker upfront is almost always going 60-80 in the 100km/h zone.


Happens on our Curletts Road motorway in Christchurch (one of our only 100km roads).
Annoys the hell out of me, as we have a 60km road that runs parrallel to the motorway..

Luckily they are making it two lanes. So now we can have two cars doing 80km next to each other :facepalm:


(P.S. 80km is in both perfect conditions and the worst, I have no idea what the thought pattern is here...)

[ducatilover]

I only ever exceed the speed limit when overtaking and I only overtake where I have full visibility throughout the entire maneuver and conditions are safe. So all examples (and it's only three) are for that. I have a very detailed, thorough and streamlined process for getting off that particular circumstance reinforced with a swathe of research undermining the methods and technologies deployed by the enforcers in general. It's never yet gone to court. My approach is such that any enforcer that wanted to take it that far would almost certainly have to lie about some aspect to get it there, which would be very risky for them. Fastest was 127kph. Interesting stuff, good on you for that. I think.



How? I'm not going to disclose that information at all, it's my secret. :bleh:

[Parlane]

I'm not going to disclose that information at all, it's my secret. :bleh:

He knows how far his wheel is off the ground when doing 100km...

[ducatilover]

You can??? :blink:. Then you must either have cruise control, be riding in non 100km/h areas or be impeding the flow of traffic, especially if your speedo for example is 10% out & someone elses is only 1% another problem with the speed scam.
Someone could be sitting on 100km/h "being legal" (to their knowledge) yet the person following could be on 85km/h & getting pissed off, he does 120km/h to get past quickly, safely & the disco starts See below :yes:


Who says your speedo is accurate? They've recently removed that bit from the Warrant of Fitness check so we're all driving around with speedos that simply function, not neccesarily accurately, yet they'll ticket with a 4% tolerance at times.
The front tyre on one of my bikes loses 7% of its' outside diameter between new and when it's worn but still legal tread depth, so what is my correct speed at both points?

you sometimes see those roadside speed readers but i've only once seen one in a 100kmh area so i can't even check it on that....

I was waiting for that :D
Go to ww.gearingcommander.com, find your gearing, factor in tyre sizes etc. Find the RPM you're doing at whatever speed you want in what ever gear you want. Sorted, then, because you're bored, GPS on a flat road.
Those roadside speed readers are rubbish, not all calibrated the same, they're just there to slow people down, I've gone past them, Commodore set on cruise at 55 indicated, 54 on GPS and they've read anywhere between 55 and "slow down" :facepalm:


My bike does 4950rpm at a real 100 km/h on a fresh tyre. You can throw your tyre circumference in the gearing commander thingy to compensate for wear :yes:. May be handy for you chaps to try? I find it very interesting. My speedo is innacurate, indicated 105 at 4950rpm.

[ducatilover]

He knows how far his wheel is off the ground when doing 100km...

So far that I never made it home :facepalm:

[scumdog]

My bike does 4950rpm at a real 100 km/h on a fresh tyre. You can throw your tyre circumference in the gearing commander thingy to compensate for wear :yes:. May be handy for you chaps to try? I find it very interesting. My speedo is innacurate, indicated 105 at 4950rpm.


MOST speedos are optimistic.:yes:

[Parlane]

MOST speedos are optimistic.:yes:

Better than being a cynic!

[ducatilover]

MOST speedos are optimistic.:yes:

My Morrie was....:facepalm::blink: Hard to imagine going slower than that.
My last BMW was doing 98 at an indicated 100, close enough :yes:

[Zedder]

My Morrie was....:facepalm::blink: Hard to imagine going slower than that.
My last BMW was doing 98 at an indicated 100, close enough :yes:

I'll do that speedo cheek for my ZZR400.

By the way, have you got any after market exhaust pipes for one?

[ducatilover]

I'll do that speedo cheek for my ZZR400.

By the way, have you got any after market exhaust pipes for one?

I have, but they're in the process of being shortened. They're Neptunes and will sound awesome.
What model 400 have you got? K or L?

[DEATH_INC.]

any enforcer that wanted to take it that far would almost certainly have to lie about some aspect to get it there, which would be very risky for them.
From My own personal experience, this wouldn't be too big of a risk for them.

[Zedder]

I have, but they're in the process of being shortened. They're Neptunes and will sound awesome.
What model 400 have you got? K or L?

It's a K model.

[scumdog]

Still not necessarily. The Road User Rule provides a number of exceptions where it is not wrong to exceed the speed limit yet the Police sometimes still try and issue tickets in those circumstances.


Hmmmm...

Drivers must not exceed speed limits

(1) A driver must not drive a vehicle at a speed exceeding the applicable speed limit (being a permanent, variable, holiday, urban, rural, temporary, or other speed limit).

(2) The fact that a vehicle is driven at a speed that does not exceed the applicable speed limit does not excuse an alleged breach of a provision of any other Part of this rule.

(3) A driver who drives at a speed exceeding the applicable speed limit is not in breach of subclause (1) if the driver proves that, at the time the vehicle was being driven,—

(a) the vehicle was being used by an enforcement officer engaged on urgent duty and compliance with the speed limit would be likely to prevent the execution of the officer's duty; or

(b) the vehicle was an emergency vehicle being used in an emergency and was operating a red beacon or a siren, or both; or

(c) the vehicle was being used (on a road subject to a speed limit of 60 km per hour or more) to convey a member of the Executive Council engaged on urgent public business, or to convey any other person authorised for the purpose by the Minister and engaged on urgent public business in the execution of the person's functions.

That is really going to get a lot on here off their speeding tickets eh...:shifty:

Compare: SR 1976/227 r 21(11)

[Parlane]

Nice sidestep SD ;D

Was c) Added in so that the prime minister could tell their driver to make it snappidity quick?

[Jantar]

... (c) the vehicle was being used (on a road subject to a speed limit of 60 km per hour or more) to convey a member of the Executive Council engaged on urgent public business, or to convey any other person authorised for the purpose by the Minister and engaged on urgent public business in the execution of the person's functions......

This was the defence used by Heil Clark's drivers. So we now have a precedent that getting to a rugby match is urgent public business. :facepalm:

[swbarnett]

why is it that those that complain the most about traffic policing shortfalls in NZ have never worked for Police?

And are never likely to.

Yet they still know how it SHOULD be done.

Why don't they join and 'make a difference'.

Probably because it's too hard and they know they couldn't.
Not at all.

We either:

1. Don't believe in the philosophy of "absolute safety at all costs".

2. Don't believe that we have a safety problem on the road.

3. Haven't had our perceptions slanted by having to attend more than our share of incidents where things do go wrong and don't want to.

[scumdog]

Not at all.

We either:

1. Don't believe in the philosophy of "absolute safety at all costs".

2. Don't believe that we have a safety problem on the road.

3. Haven't had our perceptions slanted by having to attend more than our share of incidents where things do go wrong and don't want to.

1. I for one don't operate a 'safety at all costs' philosophy - and I don't know of any of my workmates I could put in that catagory:no:

2. I see your point, people just expire messily on the roads with their safety not being compromised...:blink:

3. So join up and see if you can overcome this 'syndrome' you've decribed - lead the way and all that!:yes:

[swbarnett]

1. I for one don't operate a 'safety at all costs' philosophy - and I don't know of any of my workmates I could put in that catagory:no:
Good for you!


2. I see your point, people just expire messily on the roads with their safety not being compromised...:blink:
Just because accidents happen doesn't mean we have a safety problem. Remember that there are humans involved. We are fallible beings and some degree of error must be accepted as normal. Sometimes that error will have tragic consequences.


3. So join up and see if you can overcome this 'syndrome' you've decribed - lead the way and all that!:yes:
I doubt they'd take me. Too old and unfit. Besides, there are too many laws on the books I don't agree with that I'd have to enforce.

[Kickaha]

Not at all.

We either:

2. Don't believe that we have a safety problem on the road.



You'd have to be pretty thick not to believe that one, either that or you don't ever ride/drive on the road and see the dumb shit that happens every day

[Ocean1]

You'd have to be pretty thick not to believe that one, either that or you don't ever ride/drive on the road and see the dumb shit that happens every day

So, if you explain real slow maybe I'll get it...

How many kilometers travelled on NZ roads last year? : http://www.mfe.govt.nz/environmental-reporting/transport/vehicle-km-travelled/total-vkt/ Call it 40,000,000,000

How many fatalities? : http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/road-deaths/toll.html 370 last year.

So, we travel 108108108 kilometers per death.

So by all means call me thick, but where's the problem?

[scumdog]

So, if you explain real slow maybe I'll get it...

How many kilometers travelled on NZ roads last year? : http://www.mfe.govt.nz/environmental-reporting/transport/vehicle-km-travelled/total-vkt/ Call it 40,000,000,000

How many fatalities? : http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/road-deaths/toll.html 370 last year.

So, we travel 108108108 kilometers per death.

So by all means call me thick, but where's the problem?

I'd say ask somebody whose relation has been killed by the dangerous/stupid/drunk/careless act of another driver, they might know..:shifty:

[Ocean1]

I'd say ask somebody whose relation has been killed by the dangerous/stupid/drunk/careless act of another driver, they might know..:shifty:

Yeah, 'cause they'll have a real rational grip on the issue. Almost as good as a traffic officer.

[Owl]

I sped yesterday, no ticket, no angst:D

[scumdog]

Yeah, 'cause they'll have a real rational grip on the issue. Almost as good as a traffic officer.

And ALMOST as good as Ocean1:shifty:

[Kickaha]

So by all means call me thick, but where's the problem?

Maybe because I consider the multiple near misses each day that I see a safety issue not just the ones that cause an accident and can be measured

[Jantar]

I sped yesterday, no ticket, no angst:D

+1,

But there were 5 cops between Alexandra and Milton. One just north of Roxburgh, one at Millars Flat, one in Lawrence, and two just short of Milton. I never bother counting the ones on SH1 between Milton and Dunedin, as there are always cops on that stretch. In every case the Mk1 Eyeball was faster than the Escort 9500i, so I guess they were using instant on.

Even coming home after dark, and there were still cops cruising and pinging away. This time the Escort 9500i was quicker.

[Ocean1]

And ALMOST as good as Ocean1:shifty:

Hey, they're not my numbers. But they are hard data.


Maybe because I consider the multiple near misses each day that I see a safety issue not just the ones that cause an accident and can be measured

I suspect you'd benefit from a mild dose of perspective. Check those numbers again and consider that to "improve" them any further you'd likely have to pretty much reduce the speed limits to zero. The point is we've all got a huge investment in our roading infrastructure and our vehicles and it pays us in spades in terms of quality of life. Unless it's use is restricted and it's costs are driven up by safety innitiatives ratcheted up to rediculous levels in repeatedly failed attempts to reduce the "carnage" by another 0.01%.

Get the numbers. Anything else is opinion, and they're a dime a dozen.

[Zedder]

So, if you explain real slow maybe I'll get it...

How many kilometers travelled on NZ roads last year? : http://www.mfe.govt.nz/environmental-reporting/transport/vehicle-km-travelled/total-vkt/ Call it 40,000,000,000

How many fatalities? : http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/road-deaths/toll.html 370 last year.

So, we travel 108108108 kilometers per death.

So by all means call me thick, but where's the problem?

It's not about only kilometres per death though.

What about serious injury accidents as well and the tying up of emergency services and hospital staff, the costs to the tax payer with ACC etc etc.

[warewolf]

What about serious injury accidents as well and the tying up of emergency services and hospital staff, the costs to the tax payer with ACC etc etc.If they were serious about that, then licences would be harder to get and harder to keep. The current system of Nazi-like persecution of "speed" is doing fcukall about it.

[jellywrestler]

MOST speedos are optimistic.:yes: until the Tyre shop fit the wrong size tyres and throw it out, without you knowing...

[Parlane]

until the Tyre shop fit the wrong size tyres and throw it out, without you knowing...

Or you don't tighten the speedo cable enough when you screw it back in to your dash... :facepalm: And it reads 0... "Fuck traffic is going slow today".

[Edbear]

until the Tyre shop fit the wrong size tyres and throw it out, without you knowing...

I tend to go by the GPS as being more accurate. The Kizashi speedo is a full 5km/h optimistic at 100km/h. Our Pulsar was 3km/h out.

[jellywrestler]

I tend to go by the GPS as being more accurate. The Kizashi speedo is a full 5km/h optimistic at 100km/h. Our Pulsar was 3km/h out.My point being is they've recently removed speedo accuracy from the warrant of fitness testing.
So the Government legislates a speed limit.
The Government legislates to have all vehicles on the road tested but intentionally omits this.
Very few people know that they have innacurate speedos and few have the clues to use a gps either

[Parlane]

My point being is they've recently removed speedo accuracy from the warrant of fitness testing.
So the Government legislates a speed limit.
The Government legislates to have all vehicles on the road tested but intentionally omits this.
Very few people know that they have innacurate speedos and few have the clues to use a gps either

The GPS indicated speed is only accurate on straight roads...

[Edbear]

My point being is they've recently removed speedo accuracy from the warrant of fitness testing.
So the Government legislates a speed limit.
The Government legislates to have all vehicles on the road tested but intentionally omits this.
Very few people know that they have innacurate speedos and few have the clues to use a gps either

Few, it seems even bother to look at their speedos.. :blink:

When you have a driving populace that has little or no understanding of vehicle dynamics or maintenance, (witness the number of semi-flat and bald tyres driving around!), and who can't negotiate even a straight lane, you're on a hiding to nothing, expecting anyone to know anything about GPS's... :shutup:

[Jantar]

The GPS indicated speed is only accurate on straight roads...
That depends on the update rate of your GPS and the degree of accuracy you require. I think you'll find that at 100 kmh your GPs will be more accurate than your speedo even on very twisty roads. The downside of GPS is that tells you what your average speed has been over the last 1 second, 2 seconds, or whatever refresh rate you have. Unless you are holding a steady speed it doesn't tell you what your speed is right now.

[FJRider]

Few, it seems even bother to look at their speedos.. :blink:

When you have a driving populace that has little or no understanding of vehicle dynamics or maintenance, (witness the number of semi-flat and bald tyres driving around!), and who can't negotiate even a straight lane, you're on a hiding to nothing, expecting anyone to know anything about GPS's... :shutup:

A wof lasts for six months (12 for newer vehicles) ... and most assume for that period ... their vehicle is fit and safe to be on the road ... the little white sticker tells them so. :yes:

Tickets can and ARE being issued for not having a vehicle up to WOF standard ... even WITH a current WOF sticker ... those failing the roadside "attitude test" often find this out the expensive way ... Those "passing the test" get a complience notice ...

ANOTHER good reason NOT to rant to the officer ... :shutup:

[Zedder]

If they were serious about that, then licences would be harder to get and harder to keep. The current system of Nazi-like persecution of "speed" is doing fcukall about it.

The licencing system is aimed at the lowest common denominator like the legal system.

It's the mind behind the throttle and the choices made which are more relevant. Speed or don't speed, drink drive or don't drink drive etc. It is a conscious decision by us all.

[Berg]

A wof lasts for six months (12 for newer vehicles) ... and most assume for that period ... their vehicle is fit and safe to be on the road ... the little white sticker tells them so. :yes:

Tickets can and ARE being issued for not having a vehicle up to WOF standard ... even WITH a current WOF sticker ... those failing the roadside "attitude test" often find this out the expensive way ... Those "passing the test" get a complience notice ...

ANOTHER good reason NOT to rant to the officer ... :shutup:

Had a taxi driver on Thursday try to tell me his taxi was legal because it had a WOF. No matter that both front tyres looked like racing slicks and the WOF was 4 months old. But but but, it's legal, it's got a WOF:facepalm::brick:

[scumdog]

Had a taxi driver on Thursday try to tell me his taxi was legal because it had a WOF. No matter that both front tyres looked like racing slicks and the WOF was 4 months old. But but but, it's legal, it's got a WOF:facepalm::brick:

I deal with fuck-wits who have that same 'thought' pattern.

Had a hell of a job convincing a young Starlet owner that as his WOF had been out for almost seven months it must have been over a year ago since it was last checked for a WOF.

"Nah, look, can't you read it's ONLY just over six months out, Jesus!!" said in a weary condescending way was his explanation....after his initial rant and 'toys out the cot' act.

And the green sticker for all the Starlets OBVIOUS faults didn't smooth the way...:no:

Especially as the car had to be taken 80km away to the nearest testing station.

If I got caught driving a dunger like that I would be nice-as to minimise the fiscal damage and inconvenience...:yes:

[steve_t]

If I got caught driving a dunger like that I would be nice-as to minimise the fiscal damage and inconvenience...:yes:

Yeah, I still can't get my head around people who rant, rave, and abuse people who they want to help them. One of my rele's tried to tell me about how he'd been hard done by with regards to his electricity bill and that he'd already called the call centre and told the person on the phone that it was extortionate and how he was going to call the police :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm: Naturally, I told him he was an idiot and that the person on the phone isn't going to help you if you're a dick. But so many people act in exactly the same way. If someone wants something from me and they're rude and demanding, their priority goes to the bottom of my list of things to do. That's just how I roll :shutup:

[rastuscat]

Have pondered why the WoF thing actually exists.

I have read posts on here that talk about doing this and that before taking the bike for a WoF. Like removing illegal things, getting the WoF and putting them back on for the next 6 months.

The law says you gotta have one, but also that you have to keep your vehicle in WoF condition.

I've seen boy racers with two sets of doors, seats, windows, suspension etc. One legal set for the WoF, the other pimped up ones for the other 5 months and 29 days out of every 6 months.

Makes you wonder why WoFs exist. I personally supported that system until I realised how many people treat it as a joke. Once again, it's a system that only effects the people who care enough to comply. I still WoF all my vehicles, but only coz I'm basically a law abiding conformist.

Harumph.

[Scuba_Steve]

Have pondered why the WoF thing actually exists.

I have read posts on here that talk about doing this and that before taking the bike for a WoF. Like removing illegal things, getting the WoF and putting them back on for the next 6 months.

The law says you gotta have one, but also that you have to keep your vehicle in WoF condition.

I've seen boy racers with two sets of doors, seats, windows, suspension etc. One legal set for the WoF, the other pimped up ones for the other 5 months and 29 days out of every 6 months.

Makes you wonder why WoFs exist. I personally supported that system until I realised how many people treat it as a joke. Once again, it's a system that only effects the people who care enough to comply. I still WoF all my vehicles, but only coz I'm basically a law abiding conformist.

Harumph.

the answers simple really, the MTA make a fuck load of money from it.

We'd all be better off without it, no "but it's got a WOF" excuses

[scumdog]

Makes you wonder why WoFs exist. I personally supported that system until I realised how many people treat it as a joke. Once again, it's a system that only effects the people who care enough to comply. I still WoF all my vehicles, but only coz I'm basically a law abiding conformist.

Harumph.

My 2-cents?

At least mr & Mrs Average have their cars mechanical condition checked twice a year - they are the ones least likely to be aware of how their tyres are etc.

And the boiracer types? I could write a book titled "Pathetic and far-fetched explanations as to why a car is not up to WOF standards".

Like "No, no, really, they're proper King springs, that's why it's so low, it's just we cut two coils off them" :blink::shutup:

They must think we are as silly as they are!

[rastuscat]

the answers simple really, the MTA make a fuck load of money from it.

We'd all be better off without it, no "but it's got a WOF" excuses

One of the Oz states (QLand I think) has no safety inspection other than when you sell a vehicle. They have a very strong on-road inspection system though, and they are hard on the vehicles that aren't up to the required standard.

Seems like a fair system to me.

I'd set up a checkpoint outside Dunkin Donuts. Bugger all inspections, lots of cinnamon.

Yum

[scumdog]

One of the Oz states (QLand I think) has no safety inspection other than when you sell a vehicle. They have a very strong on-road inspection system though, and they are hard on the vehicles that aren't up to the required standard.

Seems like a fair system to me.

I'd set up a checkpoint outside Dunkin Donuts. Bugger all inspections, lots of cinnamon.

Yum

Nah, ya would make a killing at Maccas on dole day!

[rastuscat]

At least mr & Mrs Average have their cars mechanical condition checked twice a year - they are the ones least likely to be aware of how their tyres are etc.

Yeah, the good folk see some benefit, so it's not all bad.

Wanna join my Dunkin Donuts 3R?

[Scuba_Steve]

One of the Oz states (QLand I think) has no safety inspection other than when you sell a vehicle. They have a very strong on-road inspection system though, and they are hard on the vehicles that aren't up to the required standard.

Seems like a fair system to me.

I'd set up a checkpoint outside Dunkin Donuts. Bugger all inspections, lots of cinnamon.

Yum

yep a lot of people would prefer this system, but beating the MTA lobby group protecting their vested financial interest aint an easy thing

[scumdog]

Yeah, the good folk see some benefit, so it's not all bad.

Wanna join my Dunkin Donuts 3R?

Shit yeah, awright!:woohoo:

All allowances paid??

[Jantar]

the answers simple really, the MTA make a fuck load of money from it.

We'd all be better off without it, no "but it's got a WOF" excuses
Personally I believe there's a bit more to it than that. I check my own vehicles so that when they go for WoF its usually a formality. However sometimes the tester finds something I've missed, and if it is a safety issue I'm pleased when its pointed out to me.

I'm not so pleased when I take a vehicle in and point out something I believe is borderline and needs replacing to find out it wasn't replaced because it was within standards.

[thepom]

I prefer them to point out as borderline cos I can then replace it knowing it will be ok next time.....:blink:

[rastuscat]

I agree. I'm really really disappointed that rastuscat doesn't already know the exceptions written into the Road User Rule - his job of the last many years is based on the Rule, and if that wasn't enough I did give more than a few clues in my original post that was months ago. And still he doesn't know.

he's simply wrong when he says: and I've got the acquittals to prove it.

And yes rastuscat, ticketing in passing lanes is a serious issue. It's even against Police policy as you well know, if only because I've told you so often.

I give up.

It's good that you've given up Jacko, as you are talking tosh. I've waited to respond, as I wanted to have the Speed Enforcement Guidelines and the Road User Rule in front of me to quote from.

There is no Police policy against ticketing in passing lanes. Please provide me with a copy of the one you are referring to, as I have just read our policy again, and you are talking tosh. The only reference to passing lanes is in the Speed Camera Policy, an entirely different policy which doesn't apply to mobile radar enforcement.

The Road User Rule contains no exceptions in regard to speed, other than in emergency circumstances. Quote me Rule and section (not just the bits that suit your argument), and we'll discuss it. Bring it on.

You have previously crowed about having three tickets thrown out before they get to court. Acquittals only at the discretion of a JP or Judge in a court hearing. So, how did you get an acquittal?

Harumph.

[Oblivion]

WoFs are there as an aid for the people that arent mechanically inclined. Not everyone will remember, or be able to recognize what a road legal looks like, or maybe how to tell if your headlights arent orientated properly. They just try to help the lowest common denominator to get their car road ready.

[scumdog]

WHAT JACK SAID:
Quote Originally Posted by Jack Miller View Post
"Still not necessarily. The Road User Rule provides a number of exceptions where it is not wrong to exceed the speed limit yet the Police sometimes still try and issue tickets in those circumstances".

WHAT I SAID:

"Hmmmm...

Drivers must not exceed speed limits

(1) A driver must not drive a vehicle at a speed exceeding the applicable speed limit (being a permanent, variable, holiday, urban, rural, temporary, or other speed limit).

(2) The fact that a vehicle is driven at a speed that does not exceed the applicable speed limit does not excuse an alleged breach of a provision of any other Part of this rule.

(3) A driver who drives at a speed exceeding the applicable speed limit is not in breach of subclause (1) if the driver proves that, at the time the vehicle was being driven,—

(a) the vehicle was being used by an enforcement officer engaged on urgent duty and compliance with the speed limit would be likely to prevent the execution of the officer's duty; or

(b) the vehicle was an emergency vehicle being used in an emergency and was operating a red beacon or a siren, or both; or

(c) the vehicle was being used (on a road subject to a speed limit of 60 km per hour or more) to convey a member of the Executive Council engaged on urgent public business, or to convey any other person authorised for the purpose by the Minister and engaged on urgent public business in the execution of the person's functions.

That is really going to get a lot on here off their speeding tickets eh..."

JUST IN CASE YOU MISSED IT THE FIRST TIME ON POST #336 JACK, ALWAYS GLAD TO HELP!:rockon:

[Taz]

It's already been invented. It's an Isuzu Piazza. Owning one was conclusive proof of stupidity.

How many do you have now? :rofl:

[steve_t]

(3) A driver who drives at a speed exceeding the applicable speed limit is not in breach of subclause (1) if the driver proves that, at the time the vehicle was being driven,—


the vehicle was being used (on a road subject to a speed limit of 60 km per hour or more) to convey a member of the Executive Council engaged on urgent public business, or to convey any other person authorised for the purpose by the Minister and engaged on urgent public business in the execution of the person's functions.



Gotta get to the rugby on time! Gotta get to the rugby on time! :corn:

[warewolf]

Yes, Victoria doesn't have regular WoFs, only at sale time. Used to be able to drive any decrepit PoS as long as you didn't draw attention to yourself. But more recently they are doing more on-road checks. NSW has an annual WoF tied to your annual rego. You can't renew the rego without a fresh WoF. Only one date to remember, only one renewal notice needs to be sent. The Kiwi system is a PITA.


Personally I believe there's a bit more to it than that. I check my own vehicles so that when they go for WoF its usually a formality. However sometimes the tester finds something I've missed, and if it is a safety issue I'm pleased when its pointed out to me.

I'm not so pleased when I take a vehicle in and point out something I believe is borderline and needs replacing to find out it wasn't replaced because it was within standards.Yes, me too. I've had WoF inspectors fail a worn seat cover but pass a sticking throttle. He even had it stick open on him when he did the brake test - no fail 'cos it's not on his check list. (and yes, I was in the process of fixing it when the WoF was due, and thought he'd fail it which would give me a little motivation to attend to it. FAIL.)

[Jack Miller]

WHAT JACK SAID:
Quote Originally Posted by Jack Miller View Post
"Still not necessarily. The Road User Rule provides a number of exceptions where it is not wrong to exceed the speed limit yet the Police sometimes still try and issue tickets in those circumstances".

WHAT I SAID:

"Hmmmm...

Drivers must not exceed speed limits

(1) A driver must not drive a vehicle at a speed exceeding the applicable speed limit (being a permanent, variable, holiday, urban, rural, temporary, or other speed limit).

(2) The fact that a vehicle is driven at a speed that does not exceed the applicable speed limit does not excuse an alleged breach of a provision of any other Part of this rule.

(3) A driver who drives at a speed exceeding the applicable speed limit is not in breach of subclause (1) if the driver proves that, at the time the vehicle was being driven,—

(a) the vehicle was being used by an enforcement officer engaged on urgent duty and compliance with the speed limit would be likely to prevent the execution of the officer's duty; or

(b) the vehicle was an emergency vehicle being used in an emergency and was operating a red beacon or a siren, or both; or

(c) the vehicle was being used (on a road subject to a speed limit of 60 km per hour or more) to convey a member of the Executive Council engaged on urgent public business, or to convey any other person authorised for the purpose by the Minister and engaged on urgent public business in the execution of the person's functions.

That is really going to get a lot on here off their speeding tickets eh..."

JUST IN CASE YOU MISSED IT THE FIRST TIME ON POST #336 JACK, ALWAYS GLAD TO HELP!:rockon:

Didn't miss it, just waiting for you to finish the job and find the others.

[scumdog]

Didn't miss it, just waiting for you to finish the job and fine the others.

C'mon Jack this is where you shoot me down in flames with all the other Road User Rules I omitted, the ones that inform you about the 'exceptions where it is not wrong to exceed the speed limit"...

[Jack Miller]

C'mon Jack this is where you shoot me down in flames with all the other Road User Rules I omitted, the ones that inform you about the 'exceptions where it is not wrong to exceed the speed limit"...

Already done it in my other thread. Don't want to bore everyone else repeating it here.

[rastuscat]

Yeah, come on Jack, tell us where the law says it's okay to exceed the limit........

Just keep it to Rule and Section, I have already read the other threads where you left out the bits that didn't suit your argument.

[scumdog]

Yeah, come on Jack, tell us where the law says it's okay to exceed the limit........

Just keep it to Rule and Section, I have already read the other threads where you left out the bits that didn't suit your argument.

From his earlier post, don't you pay attention???

"the members refused to listen to my explanation that if I had sped, which I doubted, it was because the vehicle I was passing had accelerated dangerously along with those closely following it meaning I had not breached the Road User Rule[4]

4] “A person is not in breach of this rule if the act took place in response to a situation on the road not of the person’s own making ...” S1.8.1 Land Transport Road User Rule 2004

":blink::blink::blink:

[rastuscat]

From his earlier post, don't you pay attention???

"the members refused to listen to my explanation that if I had sped, which I doubted, it was because the vehicle I was passing had accelerated dangerously along with those closely following it meaning I had not breached the Road User Rule[4]

4] “A person is not in breach of this rule if the act took place in response to a situation on the road not of the person’s own making ...” S1.8.1 Land Transport Road User Rule 2004

":blink::blink::blink:

Ah, the old "It was someone elses fault" defence. Common on KB, and it means not having to take responsibility for anything that ever goes wrong. Unfortunately, until Jacko admits some fault he'll never be able to take control of his destiny.

Interestingly, I've just read the whole section, and only a very narrow minded interpretation would see Jackos claimed 127 km/h as okay. Like, the moons would have to be in perfect alignment with the 17 donut holes on my desk before that hypothetical nonsense would line up. Was it really someone elses fault that you were doing 127? Tripe.

I'm just off to blame someone else for something. Haven't decided what yet.

[rastuscat]

From his earlier post, don't you pay attention???

"the members refused to listen to my explanation that if I had sped, which I doubted, it was because the vehicle I was passing had accelerated dangerously along with those closely following it meaning I had not breached the Road User Rule[:

Probably couldn't hear his explanation for the whining........

[Jack Miller]

Probably couldn't hear his explanation for the whining........

No, they didn't hear because they're not used to listening, as I also pointed out with reference to the Gravitas Report, and as you & Scumdog continue to reinforce.

BTW, 127 was the cop's claim. I wasn't watching the speedo but doubt it was true.

[scumdog]

No, they didn't hear because they're not used to listening, as I also pointed out with reference to the Gravitas Report, and as you & Scumdog continue to reinforce.

BTW, 127 was the cop's claim. I wasn't watching the speedo but doubt it was true.

Ah well, whatever float your boat...

[bsasuper]

People who live on some streets around eden park stadium have been told they can not park vehicles on the road during the world cup so the roads will be clear, unless they pay for a parking permit at considerable cost.So if everyone payed for the permit, the roads are not clear, and the local council makes a lot of money.Speeding fines are the same.

[Jack Miller]

My bike does 4950rpm at a real 100 km/h on a fresh tyre.

Lets see if I've understood you right.
1. You support a 4kph enforcement tolerance
2. You wouldn't mind if it was 1kph, might even be happier
3. You have no trouble riding at exactly 100kph because you know the revs exactly
4. You monitor your tyre wear meticulously and adjust your rpm figure as the tyre ages

Correct on all four, some or none?

[scumdog]

People who live on some streets around eden park stadium have been told they can not park vehicles on the road during the world cup so the roads will be clear, unless they pay for a parking permit at considerable cost.So if everyone payed for the permit, the roads are not clear, and the local council makes a lot of money.Speeding fines are the same.

Except you don't get them for parking...:blink::shutup:

[bsasuper]

Except you don't get them for parking...:blink::shutup:

You missed the point, look up, its way over your head:facepalm: is this how you give out tickets? (without thinking)

[scumdog]

You missed the point, look up, its way over your head:facepalm: is this how you give out tickets? (without thinking)

Oh I picked your obscure point OK - it's just I'm bored and poking the dog with a sharp stick seems a good idea right now...

[Ocean1]

Except you don't get them for parking...:blink::shutup:

Next year maybe, when they've reduced the limits and tolerances more, eh?

[Jack Miller]

Acquittals only at the discretion of a JP or Judge in a court hearing. So, how did you get an acquittal?
Harumph.

OK you got me there rastuscat but I was only trying to save words. I get the impression that most on the forum are fed up with me repeating myself, which I only do to try and get through to you & scumdog. I worded it much more carefully & accurately (and with more words) in my original post. Whether it was a JP / Judge or a senior traffic enforcer that made the decision the outcome was the same - I got off. Rightly too.

[scumdog]

Yawn.......:zzzz::bye:

[rastuscat]

Yawn.......:zzzz::bye:

Wot 'e said. :nya::nya::nya:

[rastuscat]

OK you got me there rastuscat but I was only trying to save words.

Trying to save words? Being economical with the truth, more like it.

Just to clarify, there are positions in the Infringement Bureau called adjudicators. They are normally long serving cops, or retired cops who are looking for an office job. They read all the letters of explanation and tickets that are written, and make decisions on further action or NFA. I trust their judgement, so despite having no idea why you have been let off I accept that it was the right thing.

However, the way you quote the law as granting an exemption for speed in a passing lane is very misleading. Further, the misquoting of our policies, which I happen to know very well, is further evidence of your tendency to spin your stories. Start the next one with 'Once Upon A Time', and we'll be able to see it as the fairy tale it is bound to be.

That'll learn ya.

Good night children, sleep tight, and mind the bed bugs don't bite.

:zzzz:

[ducatilover]

Lets see if I've understood you right.
1. You support a 4kph enforcement tolerance
2. You wouldn't mind if it was 1kph, might even be happier
3. You have no trouble riding at exactly 100kph because you know the revs exactly
4. You monitor your tyre wear meticulously and adjust your rpm figure as the tyre ages

Correct on all four, some or none?

1: No, never said that. But was explaining, if need be one can have a fairly accurate idea of their speed.
2: I understand, you're a lawyer and those kind of questions get you more money.
3: No-one said exactly. Easy enough to do 100 or under. Or 110 and under :facepalm:
4: I do monitor my tyres, they are very important when one is on a motorcycle. Gearing commander can help with the RPM reading.

At the end of the day, if I get caught speeding (it's bound to happen one of these days) I am happy to admit I am speeding, if I doubt this, I will contact you. I will not attempt to worm my way out of it unless I have been wrongly accused. I do speed, but, have explained I can ride at or under the speed limit very easily. If you cannot keep your vehicle at a constant speed, I would suggest you pay more attention to your vehicle.

[Jack Miller]

It's good that you've given up Jacko,
I have given up repeating myself for the benefit of those who won't listen to the tedium of those who have.


There is no Police policy against ticketing in passing lanes. Please provide me with a copy of the one you are referring to, as I have just read our policy again, and you are talking tosh. The only reference to passing lanes is in the Speed Camera Policy, an entirely different policy which doesn't apply to mobile radar enforcement.

You raise something new here - it deserves its own thread.
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/141947-Police-discretion-re-ticketing-in-passing-lanes

[ducatilover]

Except you don't get them for parking...:blink::shutup:

You must spread repu.....blah blah

[Jack Miller]

1: No, never said that. But was explaining, if need be one can have a fairly accurate idea of their speed.
By watching their rev counter rather than their speedo. OK I get it.


2: I understand, you're a lawyer and those kind of questions get you more money.
Not a lawyer. Just forced to study it by a few renegade Popos who were eventually overruled by their superiors.


3: No-one said exactly. Easy enough to do 100 or under. Or 110 and under :facepalm:
Thought you were saying you could maintain an unusually steady speed without having to glue your eyes to a dial of some sort. That would have been helpful in the context. My mistake. Sorry.


4: I do monitor my tyres, they are very important when one is on a motorcycle. Gearing commander can help with the RPM reading.
...If you cannot keep your vehicle at a constant speed, I would suggest you pay more attention to your vehicle.

Oh so you ARE saying you can keep your vehicle at a constant speed.

Now I am confused. I totally get that rpm's can tell you your speed if you do the research. But how does this help you keep to a "constant" speed? You're either watching the speedo or the rev counter. I guess you could be listening to the engine rpms, but the difference between 100 & 104 kph on your bike is just 198rpm, and if you're talking "constant" a 1 kph difference is just 49.4rpm. If your ear can tell you that you should be a piano tuner, perhaps you are. The rest of us aren't. So I'm still not sure what your point is.

[ducatilover]

By watching their rev counter rather than their speedo. OK I get it.


Not a lawyer. Just forced to study it by a few renegade Popos who were eventually overruled by their superiors.


Thought you were saying you could maintain an unusually steady speed without having to glue your eyes to a dial of some sort. That would have been helpful in the context. My mistake. Sorry.



Oh so you ARE saying you can keep your vehicle at a constant speed.

Now I am confused. I totally get that rpm's can tell you your speed if you do the research. But how does this help you keep to a "constant" speed? You're either watching the speedo or the rev counter. I guess you could be listening to the engine rpms, but the difference between 100 & 104 kph on your bike is just 198rpm, and if you're talking "constant" a 1 kph difference is just 49.4rpm. If your ear can tell you that you should be a piano tuner, perhaps you are. The rest of us aren't. So I'm still not sure what your point is.

Use the RPMs eg 4900rpm to ascertain where the true 100kph is (give or take for expansion of tyres and what-not) Then where the speedo needle is sitting, keep it there. There isn't a huge need on the ZZR for reading gauges constantly, the Honda CB was different though, I was never as good at it on that.
I can tune a piano with a tuning fork, isn't that funny? It's far harder to get it accurate than the revs on a bike.

My point was, it is not hard to ride/drive most vehicles and not "accidentally" speed.
If you are completely incapable of keeping to the speedlimit you set yourself (you may be, I don not know) that is your problem. If you fail to understand this, it's not my problem also.
I am not saying I can do it all the time, but, most of the time I am competent in keeping my bike/car at a fairly constant speed.
I can see this is going to, yet again, fall on deaf ears or a closed mind.

[Jantar]

Personally, I prefer to watch the road and other traffic rather than my instruments. I find I'm involved in far fewer near misses that way.

[Oblivion]

Personally, I prefer to watch the road and other traffic rather than my instruments. I find I'm involved in far fewer near misses that way.

Rep~ blah blah blah

[ducatilover]

Personally, I prefer to watch the road and other traffic rather than my instruments. I find I'm involved in far fewer near misses that way.

You don't tune your piano and attempt to dissect simple statements? Poof.

[Jack Miller]

And another bit: why is it that those that complain the most about traffic policing shortfalls in NZ have never worked for Police?
And are never likely to.
Yet they still know how it SHOULD be done.
Why don't they join and 'make a difference'.

Can't speak for all those who complain about traffic policing but I won't be joining because I don't believe traffic policing makes any difference. The top three causes of accidents (poor observation, poor handling, & driving too fast for the conditions) come down to poor drivers' skills. There is nothing traffic rule enforcement can do about that.

[scumdog]

Jack Miller for Dangerous Bastard!!!:woohoo::not::corn:

[ducatilover]

I don't believe traffic policing makes any difference.

There we go.
I disagree with you.

[Jack Miller]

There we go.
I disagree with you.

You're right, they probably do make some difference, just not much in terms of the main accident factors like driver inattention, poor observation skills and poor judgement.

[ducatilover]

You're right, they probably do make some difference, just not much in terms of the main accident factors like driver inattention, poor observation skills and poor judgement.

My riding/driving has changed, not a fan of paying fines.
But, I wouldn't know exactly how much of a difference they have made as we have nothing to compare to.

[Parlane]

My riding/driving has changed, not a fan of paying fines.
But, I wouldn't know exactly how much of a difference they have made as we have nothing to compare to.

My driving only changed when I hit 90 demerits. Now that I'm down to 50, it's part way between :facepalm:

[ducatilover]

My driving only changed when I hit 90 demerits. Now that I'm down to 50, it's part way between :facepalm:

I never had that many demerits :yes: But I did lose my licence this one time....

[Oblivion]

I never had that many demerits :yes: But I did lose my licence this one time....

This one time, at band camp..........

[Reckless]

One of the guys I've ridden with on the odd group ride just git a ticket for 90k in a 100. Yesterday I think it was??

He's the sort of rider that I've never seen lane split, is always in the rear group behaving, always sits in the line of traffic, wouldn't think of illegally removing his L plate etc you get the picture of this type of rider/person.
He was on the motorway doing his best to ride safely still 10k under the posted speed limit but genuinely considered his L plate limit of 70K unsafe with the traffic around etc!

He explained this to the cop
He explained the law has already changed to rid this rule! but not implemented yet!
There was nothing about his riding or bike that would warrant a ticket?
The cop excepted all points but she still wrote out the ticket! Discretion yeh right!!

Me
Got a ticket at xmas, cop hiding in the bush using his Laser gun, two lane motorway, he excepted my explanation that I was doing the speed limit, passed a car, then dropped back to the speed limit. Said he observed me doing this! All safe no problem with my riding, indication etc. Took him two shots to get me at my maximum brief velocity of 117K before I slowed back down. Next thing his car pops out of the bush red and blues flashing following the fresh tyre tracks of last poor bastard he nailed. Looked me up in his computer in the car, no priors, no demerits! oh btw there was no agro between us at all as he was deciding to charge me or not. He still wrote out the ticket in the days that followed and mailed it. Visible policing?? Discretion yeh right!

Was example 1 speeding technically yes, Was I speeding yes I admit it, paid up, and took the hit.

My Ex wife is a watchouse officer, my long time friend watchhouse officer (different station), another really good friend a currently working snake (by her own description). There are threads on here with me defending cops!
I'm certainly NOT anti cop (or wasn't)??

I imagine the cops on here will aggressively defend their position, the KB goodies will say suck it up you got caught (which I did by the way).

But the question was asked why the angst! I now have this angst?? I have previously broken the law, was reckless when younger and always just excepted the consequences of my actions with no angst towards cops what so ever!

The game has changed, you changed it! Do I hate cops defiantly not.
But I for one certainly do not look at a cop car with any respect anymore!

When I look at the two Howick cops, when I'm out for my Daily hour walk, double teaming in their cop car, obviously hunting, traveling slowly round and round the same block? I saw them four times on one walk! Why the Angst??

Is it my new angst fair? Dunno? but its how I feel! Is this feeling bred by the fact I got caught (sour grapes) or by the feeling that the tickets in both cases above are simply revenue gathering! Tickets for the sake of tickets that all these officers could have spent their time better in the battle against road deaths and the promotion of road safety??

Dunno? fairly or unfairly its how I now feel?? Is this a feeling of angst against the traffic police gathering momentum by many people and undermining the general respect we have for the entire police force built up over many years? Joe public don't see a road cop they see a police officer.

It appears it is the new face of the police force! The new feeling of angst you ask about, is it Self inflicted? You earn and have to maintain respect? You decide?

Dis-agree or agree it matters not?? You asked for comment??

PS you can tell work is slow :facepalm: anyone doing an addition/alteration want plans done :yes:

[rastuscat]

Thanks for your honest views.

[scumdog]

Yep, I've had my share of hard-bastard cops - but mainly MOT cops, that was when I was younger. (Police almost ignore cars and driving stuff, left it to the MOT back then.)

So everybody 'hated' MOT guys, everybody loved police, why? because day-to-day you were more likely to have interaction with the MOT guys. (There was a number of times back then I thought: "Oh, police, whew lucky it wan't a traffic cop")

But now they're all wearing the same 'colours' and you think "are they traffic, are they police" ....

And on KB it seems you have a run in with one or two cops (over what you consider is trivial ) and all cops get tarred with the same brush: Bastards.

I wonder if cops are allowed to think the same looking from the other direction?

i.e. They pull over a car, the driver (and passengers at times - hey, THEY ain't going to get the ticket, are they?) gives the cop non-stop verbal flak and abuse and denial while sitting in a p.o.s. car and arguing there's nothing wrong with it.

So they and cop part company - does the cop then think: "Those bastard gum-diggers in their Jowett Javelins are all right arseholes, never going to speak to them again and they better not even THINK I'm going to help them".

I greatly doubt it.

But we all know this eh......:shifty:

[Scuba_Steve]

Yep, I've had my share of hard-bastard cops - but mainly MOT cops, that was when I was younger. (Police almost ignore cars and driving stuff, left it to the MOT back then.)

So everybody 'hated' MOT guys, everybody loved police, why? because day-to-day you were more likely to have interaction with the MOT guys. (There was a number of times back then I thought: "Oh, police, whew lucky it wan't a traffic cop")

But now they're all wearing the same 'colours' and you think "are they traffic, are they police" ....

And on KB it seems you have a run in with one or two cops (over what you consider is trivial ) and all cops get tarred with the same brush: Bastards.

I wonder if cops are allowed to think the same looking from the other direction?

i.e. They pull over a car, the driver (and passengers at times - hey, THEY ain't going to get the ticket, are they?) gives the cop non-stop verbal flak and abuse and denial while sitting in a p.o.s. car and arguing there's nothing wrong with it.

So they and cop part company - does the cop then think: "Those bastard gum-diggers in their Jowett Javelins are all right arseholes, never going to speak to them again and they better not even THINK I'm going to help them".

I greatly doubt it.

But we all know this eh......:shifty:

Well see there ya go, separate the PIGs from the cops again, bring respect back to the cops :yes:.
Or (now for the impossible) rewrite the laws as sane, stop the speed scam.

As for cops brushing every1 with the same brush, up north they do. If your a teen in a car, your a boy racer! No if, when's, or but's.

The amount of times I got pulled over for "standard checks" in my 1.5l stock standard Nissan Vanette, or my parents stock "old peoples" Mitzi Gallant. Never them only ever me, cause I was a teen with a car & therefore a "boy racer"

[Berg]

Today's discretion:innocent:
Stopped a van. Possible $1170 worth of fines. Warned on two at a value of $970 and issued the one for $200.
I could have been a "hard arse" and issued the lot and a lot of cops will rubbish me for not issuing all the infringements but I got my message across and it still cost the man some $$$$$$$$:shutup:
Am I a bastard:blink:

[scumdog]

Well see there ya go, separate the PIGs from the cops again, bring respect back to the cops :yes:.


Get real - can't unmake the omelet.....well not readily and no Government is going to try it.

[Jack Miller]

Yep, I've had my share of hard-bastard cops - but mainly MOT cops, that was when I was younger. (Police almost ignore cars and driving stuff, left it to the MOT back then.)

So everybody 'hated' MOT guys, everybody loved police, why? because day-to-day you were more likely to have interaction with the MOT guys. (There was a number of times back then I thought: "Oh, police, whew lucky it wan't a traffic cop")

But now they're all wearing the same 'colours' and you think "are they traffic, are they police" ....

And on KB it seems you have a run in with one or two cops (over what you consider is trivial ) and all cops get tarred with the same brush: Bastards.

I wonder if cops are allowed to think the same looking from the other direction?

i.e. They pull over a car, the driver (and passengers at times - hey, THEY ain't going to get the ticket, are they?) gives the cop non-stop verbal flak and abuse and denial while sitting in a p.o.s. car and arguing there's nothing wrong with it.

So they and cop part company - does the cop then think: "Those bastard gum-diggers in their Jowett Javelins are all right arseholes, never going to speak to them again and they better not even THINK I'm going to help them".

I greatly doubt it.

But we all know this eh......:shifty:

Just because Popos have to deal with bastards doesn't justify them behaving like bastards. The bastard cops exist in today's force too, not just in the old MOT days.

[rastuscat]

Well see there ya go, separate the PIGs from the cops again, bring respect back to the cops :yes:.

Yeah, its the traffic cops who have brought the Popos into disrepute.

Just ask Louise Nicholas. And Scott Watson. And David Bain. And Arthur Thomas. And Brent Garner (actually Google him remember that plonker?), and David Doherty. Ask all those folk why their respect for the cops has fallen. Ask them, and also ask Peter Williams QC. After you get answers from them, see Ross Meurant and ask him about the Springbok Tour.

Just out of the paper

Police have paid out more than $2.4 million in compensation to members of the public and former officers.

The public have received money for human rights breaches such as wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, or unlawful search and seizure.

Yeah, its all about tickets and revenue collecting.

Yeah right.

[scumdog]

Yeah, its the traffic cops who have brought the Ppos into disrepute.

Just ask Louise Nicholas. And Scott Watson. And David Bain. And Arthur Thomas. And
Brent Garner, and David Doherty. Ask all those folk why their respect for the cops has fallen.

I bet it's not for the tickets they have had.

Easy, easy, ya gotta remember for most ranters on here only ever come into contact with traffic guys.

Burglars, rapists and paedophiles probably have a different take on this...:shifty::whistle:

[rastuscat]

Easy, easy, ya gotta remember for most ranters on here only ever come into contact with traffic guys.

Burglars, rapists and paedophiles probably have a different take on this...:shifty::whistle:

Oh, forgot to mention that cop that streaks naked around the Riviera of The South.............

[scumdog]

Just because Popos have to deal with bastards doesn't justify them behaving like bastards. The bastard cops exist in today's force too, not just in the old MOT days.

I never suggested the 'Popos' (maybe I should be childish and call all non-police 'scrotes' in return) are justified in behaving like bastards - not did I say all MOT were bastards either.

But seeing as you've mentioned it here's fact: - it's never going to change much in YOUR lifetime unless you have a cunning plan to screen recruits/weed out the ones you complain about - and I doubt you've a cunning plan - Suck it up and bear it is the best advice I can give you, it's all part of life.

It doesn't have to be I grant you but as they say on the Sopranos: "Hey, whadaya goin' ta do eh?"

[ducatilover]

Fuckin' mud-bloods :facepalm:

[rastuscat]

Fuckin' mud-bloods :facepalm:

Yeah, wot e said.

Um, wot did e say? :blink:

[steve_t]

Yeah, wot e said.

Um, wot did e say? :blink:

'e said "F'n muggles!"

[rastuscat]

'e said "F'n muggles!"

Yeah, but e said it wif an accent, so e'll get billy nuff nuff if I catch up wif 'im.

[warewolf]

I wonder if cops are allowed to think the same looking from the other direction?Don't they already? Everyone's a crook?? Dish out what would be labelled as "attitude" if they were on the receiving end?

When all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

[ducatilover]

Yeah, but e said it wif an accent, so e'll get billy nuff nuff if I catch up wif 'im.

Ah bleedy 'ell coppa!

[rastuscat]

Ah bleedy 'ell coppa!

Ullo ullo, wot's goin on ere then?

Used to dream about collaring a crook and having him say 'Fair cop guv, you got me bang to rights'. I'm sure I saw that in a comic back in my distant childhood (still living it, actually).

[ducatilover]

Ullo ullo, wot's goin on ere then?

Used to dream about collaring a crook and having him say 'Fair cop guv, you got me bang to rights'. I'm sure I saw that in a comic back in my distant childhood (still living it, actually).

I think you should all speak with such an accent! It would make run ins with the blue clad boys more interesting. :yes:

[rastuscat]

I think you should all speak with such an accent! It would make run ins with the blue clad boys more interesting. :yes:

Identify yourself to me when I next lock you up and I'll say 'Ere, you're nicked'.

Oh for the good old days.:yes:

[ducatilover]

Identify yourself to me when I next lock you up and I'll say 'Ere, you're nicked'.

Oh for the good old days.:yes:
Absolute gold, repped!


Must spread rep :facepalm:

[scumdog]

Ah bleedy 'ell coppa!
"Blimey, wot you lot doin' then? - if'n ya don't stop it I'll be feelin' your collar, bunch of bleedin 'nits"

[Scuba_Steve]

Yeah, its the traffic cops who have brought the Popos into disrepute.


For the avg public yea it is, cops would have a lot more respect if it weren't for the traffic. As scummy said it's the frontline they see, the others come under "outta sight outta mind"

[ducatilover]

"Blimey, wot you lot doin' then? - if'n ya don't stop it I'll be feelin' your collar, bunch of bleedin 'nits"

"I'll tell 'ye ma' ya old coot"

[Brian d marge]

these are the boys

<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/MKB34LPhiGQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

or these , now them the boyz ...they had a car.......

<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wL1HnDGTAK8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

but if you were a bit of a lad , you got the;

<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/D99O6oTJVHo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



or ........... a double picked guitar and a fro ,,,,

<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/PCFVEvZvo3g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>




Ah the good old days .....now all you get is ....

<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/POHg5ap_Z_g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Safer communities together byatch ......


Stephen

[Scuba_Steve]

Don't worry guys I've found a instructional vid on how to act if a cop pulls you over


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShMDT0NmPms

[Reckless]

And on KB it seems you have a run in with one or two cops (over what you consider is trivial ) and all cops get tarred with the same brush: Bastards.

Where once in my entire post did I tar any cop with any brush? or call anyone a bastard! Hit a nerve did I ?? Well sensitive ain't we all!
Hasn't my post bought all the cops on KB out in force??
Seems like there is a large amount of sensitivity here
I did my level best not to appear anti cop and quote real cases/facts!
Whooaa which direction is this "us and them" attitude coming from now??

I didn't even mention the cop I followed on my trip back at xmas after meeting, riding with and leaving Katie!
I followed him for ages after the desert road towards Taupo somewhere! Slowing to 70-80k and ducking to the extreme left, kicking gravel into the road in some occasions whilst slowing left to hide behind the brow of hills, hunting for tickets I'd guess. He seemed very desperate to get someone?? Because of these actions I caught him up and had to pass, he then proceeded to follow me about 2 meters behind at 95k for ages. Intimidating me or trying to force me faster, I dunno quite what his game was! I'd hate to think he was also feeding my plate into his computer with one hand, being that close? I was a bit freaked to be honest. First time its ever happened in 30+ years on a bike. Eventually after me keeping a constant 95K in the left hand wheel track he disappeared. You don't forget these things they are unnecessary and do erode the respect you have!

I'm simply asking the question do you think you are reaping what you sow with these new policies??
You will obviously say no but the question then remains why the Angst??

Nuff said I am again wasting my time on flipping Kiwibiker something I swore I wouldn't do LOL!! But the silly ticket of the biker for 90k in a the 100 for a law that has now been rescinded drew me to the keyboard! And I foolishly included an incident or two of my own within the last 12 months?

If you want to write off anything that could be learned as the rant of a cop hater suit yourselves but it was rustacat that posed the original question?

Have I been trolled probably?? but hey it was fun! Don't mind a good debate to pass a night home alone!

nuff said we will agree to disagree! Feel free to have the last word :yes:

[scumdog]

Where once in my entire post did I tar any cop with any brush? or call anyone a bastard!

And where has anybody ever said YOU did??:blink:

Troll.:bleh:

[Jack Miller]

I never suggested the 'Popos' (maybe I should be childish and call all non-police 'scrotes' in return)

Don't like Popo? what would you like us to call the enforcers of the road user rule? Is there a non-offensive, neutral title you and all your colleagues would accept? Don't want to offend.

[scumdog]

Don't like Popo? what would you like us to call the enforcers of the road user rule? Is there a non-offensive, neutral title you and all your colleagues would accept? Don't want to offend.

Just cops or traffic cops would be fine, 'cos at the moment various people on here call us : PIGS popo Popo cops and from time to time other names..

But refer to us how you will - I just thought I'd throw that tease in about scrotes.:D

[Scuba_Steve]

Just cops or traffic cops would be fine, 'cos at the moment various people on here call us : PIGS popo Popo cops and from time to time other names..

But refer to us how you will - I just thought I'd throw that tease in about scrotes.:D

In that case I shall call you John! :yes:

[ducatilover]

I suggest Cock-juggling-sweaty-palms.

[scumdog]

I suggest Cock-juggling-sweaty-palms.

Now THERE'S a mouthful.

(As the actress said to the politician)

[ducatilover]

Now THERE'S a mouthful.

(As the Elton said to the other queer cunt)

Fixed for ya mate

[MarkW]

As with most of the threads on KB I wasn’t going to post on this one. But…

I am of the age where I was taught that the Police deserved respect at all times.

Over the last twenty years there have been an ever increasing number of reported situations where there has been a failure by the Police to maintain the standards that I would expect the Police to maintain. Honesty, integrity and openness in particular.

A few of these situations involve the judicial system and the various processes in place in New Zealand. I accept that the Police do not control the judicial system but the Police are the public face of the judicial system.

The greatest direct contact that the Police have with the general public is in the area of roads and transportation.

In my opinion an effective law is one that is accepted by 90% of the general population and enforceable (and enforced) against the 10% that can’t or won’t accept the law.

Speeding law is one of the laws that many people break – some people more than others and to a greater degree.

Some front line Police exercise considerable discretion in the enforcement of this country’s speeding laws and some don’t. The problem is that the speeder doesn’t know which type of Policeman (or woman) is going to be doing the next stop.

So – why the angst about some speeding tickets? Simple really – getting one is like winning a negative lottery.

It is a game of chance. Complicated by some of the arbitrary numbers set as speed limits. And the perception of “a safe speed” varies from person to person. Throw in the complications from the “powers that be” that whilst the limit is 100, on a holiday weekend you’ll get a ticket at 105kph and on a non holiday weekend it will be a ticket at 110kph. But if the Police person is feeling generous even 110kph may not be enough to earn a ticket.

I will continue to use the 100kph limit as an example – if when the law was introduced it was introduced and enforced that 100kph was no ticket and 101kph was a ticket we would all have known where we stood. We would have yelled and screamed but at least we would have been certain about what the rule was. And we would have learnt very quickly that 100kph was OK and 101kph was not.

But now in reality – there are so many mixed messages out there that many people don’t believe any of the messages. And so ignore them.

Toss in some of the more radical situations involving the Police at all levels that have been reported in the recent past and in many cases the respect that the Police once had has been severely depleted.

This thread has been worthwhile and to scumdog and rastuscat in particular I say thank you for your time and efforts in trying to find the answer to a very complicated problem. Unfortunately there isn’t a simple solution.

[scumdog]

A
I will continue to use the 100kph limit as an example – if when the law was introduced it was introduced and enforced that 100kph was no ticket and 101kph was a ticket we would all have known where we stood. We would have yelled and screamed but at least we would have been certain about what the rule was. .


And the irony is: That very desirable trait of 'discretion' has been indirectly responsible for a lot of the confusion. (and angst)

[Brian d marge]

As with most of the threads on KB I wasn’t going to post on this one. But…

I am of the age where I was taught that the Police deserved respect at all times.

Over the last twenty years there have been an ever increasing number of reported situations where there has been a failure by the Police to maintain the standards that I would expect the Police to maintain. Honesty, integrity and openness in particular.

A few of these situations involve the judicial system and the various processes in place in New Zealand. I accept that the Police do not control the judicial system but the Police are the public face of the judicial system.

The greatest direct contact that the Police have with the general public is in the area of roads and transportation.

In my opinion an effective law is one that is accepted by 90% of the general population and enforceable (and enforced) against the 10% that can’t or won’t accept the law.

Speeding law is one of the laws that many people break – some people more than others and to a greater degree.

Some front line Police exercise considerable discretion in the enforcement of this country’s speeding laws and some don’t. The problem is that the speeder doesn’t know which type of Policeman (or woman) is going to be doing the next stop.

So – why the angst about some speeding tickets? Simple really – getting one is like winning a negative lottery.

It is a game of chance. Complicated by some of the arbitrary numbers set as speed limits. And the perception of “a safe speed” varies from person to person. Throw in the complications from the “powers that be” that whilst the limit is 100, on a holiday weekend you’ll get a ticket at 105kph and on a non holiday weekend it will be a ticket at 110kph. But if the Police person is feeling generous even 110kph may not be enough to earn a ticket.

I will continue to use the 100kph limit as an example – if when the law was introduced it was introduced and enforced that 100kph was no ticket and 101kph was a ticket we would all have known where we stood. We would have yelled and screamed but at least we would have been certain about what the rule was. And we would have learnt very quickly that 100kph was OK and 101kph was not.

But now in reality – there are so many mixed messages out there that many people don’t believe any of the messages. And so ignore them.

Toss in some of the more radical situations involving the Police at all levels that have been reported in the recent past and in many cases the respect that the Police once had has been severely depleted.

This thread has been worthwhile and to scumdog and rastuscat in particular I say thank you for your time and efforts in trying to find the answer to a very complicated problem. Unfortunately there isn’t a simple solution.

very well said and mostly agreed with except for the point about 100kph, the information is well understood by the great Circumlocution office, and it has been implemented in Canada to a greater or lesser degree
it requires someone getting off their arse and surveying NZ roads and ,,,heres the rub ,,,making a decision

Take for example , the town speed limit 30 mph , stand in front of an M3 zephyr ( usually had 5 big cousins in side ) and your toast
stand in front of a modern end-cap 5 car and it will hurt but you will live

50 km is well fast enough in most big cities in NZ most motorists creep up to 60 ..why

because 80 % drive to the safe conditions /20% don't ... So Canada for example measured the average road speed and set it at that , and hung the odd 20 % ,,,well I might have made the last bit up

So ...lets look at the iniganagahui rd between chch and Westport ,,,,,, one corner ( from memory ) dead straight for miles and ,miles ...

surely 120km/h ? .... remembering that hitting a power pole at 99.9999999999 is probably the same result as same power pole at 120.999999999999 km/h


nope research has been done , its all been made clear , but the great Circumlocution office is forever unchanging , and the revenue gatherers must do their job, the peasants must pay more taxes and the lives of bleeding heart yard are made miserable
nowt has changed

nor will it until the couch is sold along with the xbox

Stephen

[oneofsix]

very well said and mostly agreed with except for the point about 100kph, the information is well understood by the great Circumlocution office, and it has been implemented in Canada to a greater or lesser degree
it requires someone getting off their arse and surveying NZ roads and ,,,heres the rub ,,,making a decision

Take for example , the town speed limit 30 mph , stand in front of an M3 zephyr ( usually had 5 big cousins in side ) and your toast
stand in front of a modern end-cap 5 car and it will hurt but you will live

50 km is well fast enough in most big cities in NZ most motorists creep up to 60 ..why

because 80 % drive to the safe conditions /20% don't ... So Canada for example measured the average road speed and set it at that , and hung the odd 20 % ,,,well I might have made the last bit up

So ...lets look at the iniganagahui rd between chch and Westport ,,,,,, one corner ( from memory ) dead straight for miles and ,miles ...

surely 120km/h ? .... remembering that hitting a power pole at 99.9999999999 is probably the same result as same power pole at 120.999999999999 km/h


nope research has been done , its all been made clear , but the great Circumlocution office is forever unchanging , and the revenue gatherers must do their job, the peasants must pay more taxes and the lives of bleeding heart yard are made miserable
nowt has changed

nor will it until the couch is sold along with the xbox

Stephen

To pull out one point in your reply. When speed cameras were first introduced to the land of the long white cloud the Circumlocution office decided, somewhat wisely at AA's insistence, that they only target those traveling above the 80 percentile and only be used in black spots (frequent accident areas). This was prefaced by placing signs at all the black spots to warn motorists, which also ended up warning them there might be a camera there.
Then the Circumlocution office went mad and decided cameras were no longer about road safety, though that would still be the excuse, they were now a good way to gather taxes. No longer any signs pointing out the highly dangerous areas. The cameras are now a danger in themselves, just watch the sudden slowing when one is spotted.
The only problem with the original idea was that they didn't apply it to those traveling below the 80 percentile, would have taken some extra work as the photo would have to show if they were holding up others and ticketing only to occur in cases where they were, but doable.

[ukusa]

I love speeding tickets! Why does everyone have a problem?
It's enriching to part with my hard earned, knowing it will all go towards a better cause. And I'll keep doing it, after all there are alot more needy projects out there that need my hard earned more than I do.
It's satisfying to know that i could quite possibly work for 40 hours a week, and give those earnings away to the state charity in 2 seconds of madness.
Think of the employment this creates for the country.

I've been speeding on & off for 30 years or so now. Why stop now? Maybe if they stopped the fines I may stop speeding, because then I may just have too much money. Hell, I would then have to consider giving it away overseas to some starving Africans or something.
Bring back fines for jay walking too I say.

[Zedder]

I was just reading an article from the UK on peoples' attitute to breaking the law there but which could be applied to other countries.

It stated that most people who thought of themselves as law abiding in fact admitted to breaking the law at least 7 times a week.

At the top of the list was speeding although it also included not wearing a seatbelt, parking on the pavement and things like dropping litter.

When questioned further, 58% said it was a minor infringement, 30% said they weren't bother by the fact they broke the law, and 20% didn't see it as illegal because everyone else did it.

No wonder there's a problem.

[oneofsix]

I was just reading an article from the UK on peoples' attitute to breaking the law there but which could be applied to other countries.

It stated that most people who thought of themselves as law abiding in fact admitted to breaking the law at least 7 times a week.

At the top of the list was speeding although it also included not wearing a seatbelt, parking on the pavement and things like dropping litter.

When questioned further, 58% said it was a minor infringement, 30% said they weren't bother by the fact they broke the law, and 20% didn't see it as illegal because everyone else did it.

No wonder there's a problem.

turn the attitude on its head. The people see the problem as being with these laws, they don't consider them 'real laws' and by and large they aren't. They consider they are law abiding because they don't get violent and they don't try to take other peoples stuff.

[Zedder]

turn the attitude on its head. The people see the problem as being with these laws, they don't consider them 'real laws' and by and large they aren't. They consider they are law abiding because they don't get violent and they don't try to take other peoples stuff.

But those same people still affect other citizens detrimentally.

[bogan]

But those same people still affect other citizens detrimentally.

By whose definition? Chances are if most people break the law, most people think it is a law that should not be.

[oneofsix]

But those same people still affect other citizens detrimentally.

how? if I get from A to B a bit faster how has that harmed you. Those that broke the law by speeding are talking about exceeding the speed limit not the conditions.

[Zedder]

By whose definition? Chances are if most people break the law, most people think it is a law that should not be.

So a person parking on the pavement or dropping litter doesn't affect anyone else?

[Parlane]

But those same people still affect other citizens detrimentally.

Morals are hardwired in to *most* peoples brains. The laws that follow morals are the ones we as a human race accept, the ones that aren't moral based laws are the ones we have a hard time agreeing with.

Just my 2c.

[Scuba_Steve]

So a person parking on the pavement or dropping litter doesn't affect anyone else?

Strawman? And no someone on the pavement doesn't effect me* as for drooping litter, yea but then this is about "speed", a "speeder" doesn't affect me someone going slow does.


*depends on how they've parked

[Zedder]

how? if I get from A to B a bit faster how has that harmed you. Those that broke the law by speeding are talking about exceeding the speed limit not the conditions.

You're only focusing on the speeding aspect.

[bogan]

So a person parking on the pavement or dropping litter doesn't affect anyone else?

Sure it's an annoyance to some, does that mean we should make talking loudly illegal as well? Cos that annoys a lot of people as well. Things that are simply a matter of social courtesy, should not be illegal, but we should just shun the fuck out of people who don't show such courtesy.

[Parlane]

Sure it's an annoyance to some, does that mean we should make talking loudly illegal as well? Cos that annoys a lot of people as well. Things that are simply a matter of social courtesy, should not be illegal, but we should just shun the fuck out of people who don't show such courtesy.

Something like this maybe:

<img src=http://static2.stuff.co.nz/1315747343/351/5605351.jpg />

[bogan]

Something like this maybe:


Exactly like that! and I like how it takes on the issue of over PC-ness as well :yes:

[oneofsix]

You're only focusing on the speeding aspect.

tis the title of the thread but did reply to your other concerns, see above

[Zedder]

Strawman? And no someone on the pavement doesn't effect me* as for drooping litter, yea but then this is about "speed", a "speeder" doesn't affect me someone going slow does.


*depends on how they've parked

What took you so long Scube?

Who said it's about just speed? We've had many facets of the law discussed here.

So you can say absolutely that if you're walking down the pavement and see a person parked there that it doesn't affect you in any way, shape or form, not even a thought process, which could then cause you to change your path?

[Scuba_Steve]

What took you so long Scube?

Who said it's about just speed? We've had many facets of the law discussed here.

So you can say absolutely that if you're walking down the pavement and see a person parked there that it doesn't affect you in any way, shape or form, not even a thought process, which could then cause you to change your path?

like I said depends how they've parked, if courteous then no, couldn't give a shit. If they are blocking the path then I care, to which my response was usually continuing my path just overtop of their car.

[Zedder]

Morals are hardwired in to *most* peoples brains. The laws that follow morals are the ones we as a human race accept, the ones that aren't moral based laws are the ones we have a hard time agreeing with.

Just my 2c.

But that's just the problem, the morality issue doesn't work on *most* people hence the lowest common denominator syndrome is put in place to address it.

[Zedder]

like I said depends how they've parked, if courteous then no, couldn't give a shit. If they are blocking the path then I care, to which my response was usually continuing my path just overtop of their car.

Yeah right, I'm sure you would walk right over the top.

[Scuba_Steve]

Yeah right, I'm sure you would walk right over the top.

Why not? done it before, a couple of times

[Zedder]

Why not? done it before, a couple of times

Cool, post some photos next time.

[Bassmatt]

So you can say absolutely that if you're walking down the pavement and see a person parked there that it doesn't affect you in any way, shape or form, not even a thought process, which could then cause you to change your path?

Yes it probably does but no more than people walking two abreast toward me or a shop sign placed on the footpath or someone walking a few paces ahead while smoking etc etc

[Zedder]

how? if I get from A to B a bit faster how has that harmed you. Those that broke the law by speeding are talking about exceeding the speed limit not the conditions.

I'm not saying it harms me. But long term it could well affect me and others if the amount of resources are increased to address the speeding problem if it's seen as not being "cured."

Also, the article was about people not caring about breaking many laws not just speeding.

[Zedder]

Yes it probably does but no more than people walking two abreast toward me or a shop sign placed on the footpath or someone walking a few paces ahead while smoking etc etc

So in your world it's ok to have vehicles on pavements taking up space normally used for pedestrians and following your logic, pedestrians on the road taking up space normally used for vehicles?

[Jantar]

You're only focusing on the speeding aspect.

Well that is the question asked in the thread. Trying to move it away is taking the thread offtopic.

[Zedder]

Well that is the question asked in the thread. Trying to move it away is taking the thread offtopic.

Like I said earlier, many facets of the law have been covered in this thread.

Are ya pickin on me? Are ya? I'll set Scuba Steve on ya.

[Scuba_Steve]

So in your world it's ok to have vehicles on pavements taking up space normally used for pedestrians and following your logic, pedestrians on the road taking up space normally used for vehicles?

Your obviously not in Wellington or Auckland CBD then :shutup:

Besides under our loose definition of a road, a car on a footpath as with pedestrians, are on the road. Another of our brilliantly thought out laws :facepalm:

[Zedder]

Your obviously not in Wellington or Auckland CBD then :shutup:

Besides under our loose definition of a road, a car on a footpath as with pedestrians, are on the road. Another of our brilliantly thought out laws :facepalm:

I cannot comment on your above posting SS due to said postings of this nature having being deemed as off topic.

[Bassmatt]

So in your world it's ok to have vehicles on pavements taking up space normally used for pedestrians and following your logic, pedestrians on the road taking up space normally used for vehicles?

I didnt say that, I was pointing out that in the rare circumstance of a vehicle being parked on the footpath I would be no more put out than in the other ,legal, examples.
So in your world, the examples I gave earlier would be made illegal because they may inconvenience you?

[Zedder]

I didnt say that, I was pointing out that in the rare circumstance of a vehicle being parked on the footpath I would be no more put out than in the other ,legal, examples.
So in your world, the examples I gave earlier would be made illegal because they may inconvenience you?

Sorry, I can't comment due to off topic warning.

[Usarka]

Easy, easy, ya gotta remember for most ranters on here only ever come into contact with traffic guys.


Cause ya phone the coppas when someones nicked your stuff they're all too busy to come around! :rofl:

[Jantar]

Sorry, I can't comment due to off topic warning.

I didn't post that as a moderator, or I would have made that clear. What I was saying is that you seemed to want to dismiss the speed side of the argument in favour of other, off topic, behaviours.

[Zedder]

I didn't post that as a moderator, or I would have made that clear. What I was saying is that you seemed to want to dismiss the speed side of the argument in favour of other, off topic, behaviours.

I was covering my bases about the moderator bit there J (and having a bit of fun with the others too).

The point I was making was that everyone seemed to jump in about the speeding issue and the article I read was about many laws and peoples "don't care if I break them" attitudes.

I certainly wasn't trying to dismiss the speed topic but did miss a consecutive post and got out of sequence with the reply on that one.

Cheers

[Zedder]

I didnt say that, I was pointing out that in the rare circumstance of a vehicle being parked on the footpath I would be no more put out than in the other ,legal, examples.
So in your world, the examples I gave earlier would be made illegal because they may inconvenience you?

No, they wouldn't because they are legally entitled to be there. A vehicle is not legally entitled to park on a footpath/pavement which is provided for the purpose of walking thereon.

[Zedder]

Your obviously not in Wellington or Auckland CBD then :shutup:

Besides under our loose definition of a road, a car on a footpath as with pedestrians, are on the road. Another of our brilliantly thought out laws :facepalm:

Actually Scube, under NZ common law (which is borrowed from British law) roads are classed as footpaths, bridleways and carriageways depending on type of use permitted. This means: Footpaths are limited to foot traffic, bridleways for animals and carriageways for vehicles.

[rastuscat]

Actually Scube, under NZ common law (which is borrowed from British law) roads are classed as footpaths, bridleways and carriageways depending on type of use permitted. This means: Footpaths are limited to foot traffic, bridleways for animals and carriageways for vehicles.

The road runs from building line to building line, and includes verges, paths, parking lanes, all that bollocks.

Other wise it's be okay to get hammered and drive on a footpath.

Bloody pedestrians, if they don't like my driving they should stay off the footpath.

[bogan]

No, they wouldn't because they are legally entitled to be there. A vehicle is not legally entitled to park on a footpath/pavement which is provided for the purpose of walking thereon.

I think you are missing the point, the question is why are some things illegal, and some not, when they provide the same amount of inconvenience. Surely it should be all or nothing for consistency?

[Zedder]

The road runs from building line to building line, and includes verges, paths, parking lanes, all that bollocks.

Other wise it's be okay to get hammered and drive on a footpath.

Bloody pedestrians, if they don't like my driving they should stay off the footpath.

I'm not sure what you're on about here rtc but if you mean building line as "road reserve" in the general sense fine. My post to SS is about defining the elements within the road reserve under NZ law.

[Zedder]

I think you are missing the point, the question is why are some things illegal, and some not, when they provide the same amount of inconvenience. Surely it should be all or nothing for consistency?

Stuffed if I know B.

[Toaster]

Speeding tickets.... a great reminder we are not on a race track.

Parking on a footpath ticket.... a great reminder to be courteous to others.

No tickets all year.... a great reminder I can now afford another track day or two this summer.

:innocent:

[Parlane]

Speeding tickets.... a great reminder we are not on a race track.

Parking on a footpath ticket.... a great reminder to be courteous to others.

No tickets all year.... a great reminder I can now afford another track day or two this summer.

:innocent:

Not everyone has a 2k budget set aside for traffic infringements ? Must just be me :whistle:

[Zedder]

Not everyone has a 2k budget set aside for traffic infringements ? Must just be me :whistle:

I don't put anything aside for tickets cos I never do bad stuff like you Parlane.

[Parlane]

I don't put anything aside for tickets cos I never do bad stuff like you Parlane.

I was joking of course.. Although in my teens I did rack up just under half of that in fines... All paid for in the second set of 30 days they give you..


All in a car though.. Cars are dangerous!

[Zedder]

I was joking of course.. Although in my teens I did rack up just under half of that in fines... All paid for in the second set of 30 days they give you..


All in a car though.. Cars are dangerous!

I was joking too (a bit), I've never had a speeding ticket while riding a motorbike but have had several in cars.

[Zedder]

'Sup SS? Any thoughts?

[Scuba_Steve]

'Sup SS? Any thoughts?

Na not really most of my tickets were paid for by NZ (cheers guys), drip feed off the dole. I latter learnt it was just a scam & stopped paying all together

[Zedder]

Na not really most of my tickets were paid for by NZ (cheers guys), drip feed off the dole. I latter learnt it was just a scam & stopped paying all together

This is why I enjoy your posts.

I didn't hear back from you about your GST funded ACC idea on the other thread.

[Scuba_Steve]

This is why I enjoy your posts.

I didn't hear back from you about your GST funded ACC idea on the other thread.

fixed that for ya :yes: