PDA

View Full Version : 40 k over & you walk!



SPman
16th December 2003, 17:06
Well well, the government, in its wisdom, has decided that 40 kph over the posted limit and - zip - no license for 28 days. - ie 91 in a 50 or 141 in a 100! And speed cameras "anywhere - anytime"
But still - musn't grumble :whistle:

Jackrat
16th December 2003, 18:13
Well well, the government, in its wisdom, has decided that 40 kph over the posted limit and - zip - no license for 28 days. - ie 91 in a 50 or 141 in a 100! And speed cameras "anywhere - anytime"
But still - musn't grumble :whistle:

Well it could of been worse,I see most of the things a lot of folks were worried
about didn,t come to pass.
I,m looking foward to seeing how this drug testing goes.
I use some drugs on a daily basis that iv,e been told by my Doc,will produce a reading.I suppose I will have to carry an excuse card of some type.
No hidden cameras but. :niceone:

merv
16th December 2003, 18:19
Yeah bugger we may as well all buy 125s.

wkid_one
16th December 2003, 18:49
Used to be you only panic if 50kph over!! Maybe that HUD is getting more and more necessary.

It will be governors next on all vehicles restricting speed to 120kph?

wari
16th December 2003, 19:58
I dont need to worry about such things as speed ...

See here me hearties ... ho ho ho and a bottle of rum. (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=1174)

I ride by "the vibe" ...

I think that might be my next signature thingarmejigg :whistle:

BugSplat
16th December 2003, 20:44
So that’ll mean over 139 & you’ve got to consider if you'll stop or not…

wari
16th December 2003, 20:59
So that’ll mean over 139 & you’ve got to consider if you'll stop or not…

If you stop though ... you gotta consider all those cars you just passed getting ahead of you again ... :eek: ... and then what ?

Coldkiwi
17th December 2003, 08:47
So that’ll mean over 139 & you’ve got to consider if you'll stop or not…

hey... thats not good! how does one practice doing a runner so that when the time comes I know what to and what NOT to do?

Hitcher
17th December 2003, 09:37
Well well, the government, in its wisdom, has decided that 40 kph over the posted limit and - zip - no license for 28 days. - ie 91 in a 50 or 141 in a 100! And speed cameras "anywhere - anytime"
But still - musn't grumble :whistle:
While understanding am occasional "need for speed", any moderately sane person should concede that 91kmh in a 50kmh area is a bit excessive?
:apint:

Coldkiwi
17th December 2003, 11:13
While understanding am occasional "need for speed", any moderately sane person should concede that 91kmh in a 50kmh area is a bit excessive?
:apint:
in a 50kmhr area, possibly, although how about a clear construction zone with no workers who've taken off for a week and left their signs out? easy to do if coming down from over a 100.

as for 140 on the open road, in many places, thats well excessive. But in other places, I find it quite easy to tick along at 140+ with good visibility of any approaching hazards. Specially if you have a sorted bike/tyres and know the road.

whats the 'see ya sunshine' limit in other countries?

curious george
17th December 2003, 18:25
Just one more reason to get onto the track! $80 for open days sure beats a ticket or impounding!

It's a bit rough to apply that rule to bikies, after all, we mostly hurt ourselves, but cage drivers can do far worse. Maybe 65-70 would be a better option?

Hey SP, you aren't going all anti-government are you?
We are the government, and we are good for you.
Didn't you know?

How does this drug testing work? Random or along with breath testing? Blood or urine?

SPman
17th December 2003, 18:47
Hey SP, you aren't going all anti-government are you?
We are the government, and we are good for you.
Didn't you know?

How does this drug testing work? Random or along with breath testing? Blood or urine?

Why, I would never whinge about the gummint! :whistle:

I heard something about a "walk along a white line test" on the radio - would they make you do that on the motorway?

mangell6
17th December 2003, 20:26
If the LTSA were serious about speed ALL vehicles would be restricted to 100kph and trucks to 90kph, but then we all know that it is driver error that kills not a car/bike/truck/etc.

Jackrat
17th December 2003, 21:03
Just one more reason to get onto the track! $80 for open days sure beats a ticket or impounding!

It's a bit rough to apply that rule to bikies, after all, we mostly hurt ourselves, but cage drivers can do far worse. Maybe 65-70 would be a better option?

Hey SP, you aren't going all anti-government are you?
We are the government, and we are good for you.
Didn't you know?

How does this drug testing work? Random or along with breath testing? Blood or urine?

The drug testing will be a swab sample from your mouth,They are currently useing it in VIC, OZ.It probably won,t get here for a while yet.
Iv,e checked it out on the net,Hay fever meds, will give a pot reading, so anybody take meds, for that will need a card from their doc,.
I take pain and heart meds,plus hay fever meds, so I,m a bit pee,d off I have to explain myself yet again to some body who,s business it ain,t.
It looks like the cops are now going to have a chase speed limit they can,t go over.That should create some interesting situations in the near future,Aye!! :buggerd:

Goddess of Goof
17th December 2003, 22:16
Hey SP, you aren't going all anti-government are you?
We are the government, and we are good for you.
Didn't you know?

Reminds me of a song I heard recently on George radio station,

"Citizens of America, you are free,
to do whatever we tell you"

:sick:

curious george
17th December 2003, 22:40
I used to work at an importes yard cleaning truck cabs.
The japs have lights on the roof indicating speed-out they go.
Seat belts, out too.
Catalytic converters-begone!
Crazy. :puke:
/rant before it starts, hops off hobbly horse and into bed

wkid_one
18th December 2003, 06:00
in a 50kmhr area, possibly, although how about a clear construction zone with no workers who've taken off for a week and left their signs out? easy to do if coming down from over a 100.

as for 140 on the open road, in many places, thats well excessive. But in other places, I find it quite easy to tick along at 140+ with good visibility of any approaching hazards. Specially if you have a sorted bike/tyres and know the road.

whats the 'see ya sunshine' limit in other countries?

Esp. some of the long straights in the middle of the country - take National Park - easy to whip along there at 160+ if you are clicked in 6th and not watching your speedo

jrandom
18th December 2003, 08:48
Now that every motorway segment within 5 kays or so of downtown Auckland is an 80 zone, it'll be '120 in an 80' that's the real killer. I regularly bowl up to the harbour bridge doing an indicated 125. Eeeek. There goes my license...

gpercivl
18th December 2003, 10:40
I'd echo... the 'go thee to a race track' advice above...it cured a lot of my 'need for speed' tendancies on the road :yes:

MikeL
18th December 2003, 11:18
I'd echo... the 'go thee to a race track' advice above...it cured a lot of my 'need for speed' tendancies on the road :yes:
Yeah but at $80 a go it's a bit expensive. For those of us needing a regular fix it might be cheaper to pay the fines...
... if it weren't for the demerit points and the 28 day licence suspension.
:angry:

Lou Girardin
18th December 2003, 11:21
If 40km/h over is serious enough for the cops to put you off the road, without trial. Why isn't it serious enough to warrant a dangerous driving charge and arrest?
Nearly all bikes and many cars will quickly exceed 140 from 100km/h in a normal overtaking manouvre.
And when did we have the right to a trial before punishment removed?
Lou

James Deuce
18th December 2003, 12:17
If 40km/h over is serious enough for the cops to put you off the road, without trial. Why isn't it serious enough to warrant a dangerous driving charge and arrest?
Nearly all bikes and many cars will quickly exceed 140 from 100km/h in a normal overtaking manouvre.
And when did we have the right to a trial before punishment removed?
Lou

When WE voted Labour into a position of power, and when WE let National implement Random Breath testing without much of a fight.

Lou Girardin
19th December 2003, 09:54
Without starting a political argument, National brought both laws in. But what's the diff they're all the same.
Lou

James Deuce
19th December 2003, 11:40
Without starting a political argument, National brought both laws in. But what's the diff they're all the same.
Lou

Missed my point dude, but I agree with your point too.

gpercivl
19th December 2003, 13:13
Yeah but at $80 a go it's a bit expensive. For those of us needing a regular fix it might be cheaper to pay the fines...
... if it weren't for the demerit points and the 28 day licence suspension.
:angry:

Must admit you have a good point...I sold my old FZR750 road bike a few months ago and am missing it a bit :disapint:

SPman
19th December 2003, 17:30
If 40km/h over is serious enough for the cops to put you off the road, without trial. Why isn't it serious enough to warrant a dangerous driving charge and arrest?

And when did we have the right to a trial before punishment removed?
Lou

These are very good points.

If you are charged with dangerous driving, are you allowed to drive off down the road, after you get your ticket?

And how legal, moral and ethical is it for one individual (traffic cop), with no other verification than their own prejudices and personality allow, to act as judge, jury and executioner, on his (or hers) interpretation/judgement of speed, when all other "transgressions" can be contested in a court of law, before punishment!?

Seems pretty suss to me!

curious george
19th December 2003, 18:05
What is needed is a test case.
Any volunteers?
I would, but my bike ahhhhhhh is broken :o

Slim
27th July 2004, 13:05
I was thinking about this the other day (140kph over & lose your licence) and a couple of times in the last few months I've tried to find the paperwork on an official site to back this up, with no joy.

Just found this (http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/factsheets/33.html) and this (check the speeding section) (http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/factsheets/55.html) and this (http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/factsheets/62.html)) on the LTSA site (NB the first was issued March 2004, but the 2nd two are older).

Is it 150 or 140 that we have to be worried????

MikeL
27th July 2004, 13:12
I was thinking about this the other day (140kph over & lose your licence) and a couple of times in the last few months I've tried to find the paperwork on an official site to back this up, with no joy.

Just found this (http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/factsheets/33.html) and this (check the speeding section) (http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/factsheets/55.html) and this (http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/factsheets/62.html)) on the LTSA site (NB the first was issued March 2004, but the 2nd two are older).

Is it 150 or 140 that we have to be worried????
I think the change (from 50 to 40) took effect on 1st April
(we're all fools...)

Devil
27th July 2004, 13:27
I think the change (from 50 to 40) took effect on 1st April
(we're all fools...)
*blink*
it did?
I dont think I've heard anything about this.
:no:

spudchucka
27th July 2004, 13:31
The Land Transport Amendment Bill 2004 is still at the select commitee stage.

Heres a link to more info relating to it.

http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/legislation/land-transport-amdt-bill/index.html

The answer to the question is no you will not lose your licence if caught at >40 kph over the speed limit. The threshold is still >50 kph for the time being.

Deano
27th July 2004, 13:36
[QUOTE=Jackrat]Iv,e checked it out on the net,Hay fever meds, will give a pot reading, so anybody take meds, for that will need a card from their doc,.
[QUOTE]

Will they need a card or can they just tie up the court system some more further down the track.

Cool, I suffer from hayfever - do you know if it gives a reading for P, coke, opiates or heroine as well ?

merv
27th July 2004, 13:42
Its still at 50 in the current act http://www.legislation.govt.nz/libraries/contents/om_isapi.dll?clientID=735982912&hitsperheading=on&infobase=pal_statutes.nfo&jump=a1998-110%2fs.95&softpage=DOC#JUMPDEST_a1998-110/s.95 and there is an amendment bill under consideration to reduce it to 40 above permanent speeds posted and 50 for temporary speeds, so its not law yet.

What doesn't make sense to me are the words "(which speed was detected by a means other than approved vehicle surveillance equipment)".

Spud does that mean if you guys use a Hawk or a Laser etc that it doesn't apply?

Deano
27th July 2004, 13:49
What doesn't make sense to me are the words "(which speed was detected by a means other than approved vehicle surveillance equipment)".

Spud does that mean if you guys use a Hawk or a Laser etc that it doesn't apply?

Sounds to me like they can use a subjective assessment to determine if you are travelling 50km/h over any limit. Bastards. :2guns:

spudchucka
27th July 2004, 14:05
Its still at 50 in the current act http://www.legislation.govt.nz/libraries/contents/om_isapi.dll?clientID=735982912&hitsperheading=on&infobase=pal_statutes.nfo&jump=a1998-110%2fs.95&softpage=DOC#JUMPDEST_a1998-110/s.95 and there is an amendment bill under consideration to reduce it to 40 above permanent speeds posted and 50 for temporary speeds, so its not law yet.

What doesn't make sense to me are the words "(which speed was detected by a means other than approved vehicle surveillance equipment)".

Spud does that mean if you guys use a Hawk or a Laser etc that it doesn't apply?
I haven't bothered to read the Act so I can't comment with any certainty. However the words "detected by a means other than approved vehicle surveillance equipment" suggest they are reffering to detecting speed by means other than the equipment that has been approved. Hawks, Stalkers, Lasers & speed cameras are obviously "approved devices". I can only assume that it is reffering to an officers own assessment of a target vehicles speed, or perhaps by tailing a target vehicle to obtain a speed reading from a patrol vehicle speedo. If I get a chance I'll have a read of the Act and comment further, what section did you take those words from?

merv
27th July 2004, 18:35
If I get a chance I'll have a read of the Act and comment further, what section did you take those words from?

As per my link above its clause 95 (1) (c) of the existing Act and that wording is carried over to the new Bill. Not being a lawyer myself it looked totally the opposite of what I thought it should have said.

The clause says:

95. Mandatory 28-day suspension of driver licence in certain circumstances
(1)An enforcement officer must give a person a notice under this section if the enforcement officer believes on reasonable grounds that the person has
...
(c) Driven a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding the applicable speed limit by more than 50 km an hour (which speed was detected by a means other than approved vehicle surveillance equipment).

marty
27th July 2004, 22:19
that wording has always been in the legislation. it is confusing, and to the layman looks as though it means that radars cannot be used to measure speeds, but i assure you, plenty of flash lawyers have trawled thru the speeding legislation, and most of them are unable to get their clients off speeding tickets based on innacuracy of the equipment. the bottom line is that if you are caught on radar then you are nailed. it is not a subjective test, hence you will not be roadside suspended for dangerous manner, but you can be suspended for dangerous speed.

spudchucka
27th July 2004, 22:28
Typical legislation written in a very confusing manner / language.

After reading both the old and the ammended section I can't offer anything more than Marty has said in the previous post. I'm back at work on Thursday and if I get a chance I'll bounce it off one of the bosses and see if they can make any sense of it.

What?
28th July 2004, 07:32
95.1 (c) refers to using a patrol car's speedo rather than a radar, laser or time-lapse device to measure the speed of the accused.
It simply says, "if the cop says you were speeding, then you were speeding."

Slim
28th July 2004, 09:56
95.1 (c) refers to using a patrol car's speedo rather than a radar, laser or time-lapse device to measure the speed of the accused.
It simply says, "if the cop says you were speeding, then you were speeding."
Oooohhh!!! That sounds dangerous! :kick:

They can't possibly mean that a cop standing on the side of the road can say, "That vehicle was doing more than 50km over the speed limit!", get on the radio to a police vehicle with the rego & get them pulled over surely?!?!? I take the explanations of tailing to get speed from certified patrol car speedo as reasonable, but there doesn't appear to have been any limit put on it, if you know what I mean.


Thanks Spud for clearing up my original question. :)

geoffm
28th July 2004, 13:26
Oooohhh!!! That sounds dangerous! :kick:

They can't possibly mean that a cop standing on the side of the road can say, "That vehicle was doing more than 50km over the speed limit!", get on the radio to a police vehicle with the rego & get them pulled over surely?!?!? I take the explanations of tailing to get speed from certified patrol car speedo as reasonable, but there doesn't appear to have been any limit put on it, if you know what I mean.


Thanks Spud for clearing up my original question. :)

Cops can already "estimate" (or guess to be accurate) your speed and nail you for it. Nothing new there. Since all cops are honest, infalliable and expert at judging speed, this is always upheld by the JPs if you take it to court. It is only if you want to go to the Appeal court that revidence gets involved, at which point your legal bill is at least 100 times that of the fine.
Geoff

Jackrat
28th July 2004, 16:50
Heard one on the radio that should impress everybody.
Remote cameras mounted in cats eyes on the motorways.
Guy on Waikato was bleating about them this avo', He reckons they should try educateing us instead of booking us.
Guess he's been asleep for his whole driving life.

Devil
29th July 2004, 08:39
Heard one on the radio that should impress everybody.
Remote cameras mounted in cats eyes on the motorways.
Guy on Waikato was bleating about them this avo', He reckons they should try educateing us instead of booking us.
Guess he's been asleep for his whole driving life.
I find this idea of these cameras amusing, especially since at this stage its just an idea (yeah I know they exist, but I mean about bringing them here).

After the kerfuffle about hidden speed cameras, are they going to try it on again with these??

Mongoose
29th July 2004, 10:08
I find this idea of these cameras amusing, especially since at this stage its just an idea (yeah I know they exist, but I mean about bringing them here).

After the kerfuffle about hidden speed cameras, are they going to try it on again with these??

The whole *Keep the camera in view* was a soft soap approach by the then Poli's to get the dang things in in the first place. I think that was a certain J Banks, yeah the one wot all you Dorklanders love, that was in charge of that. A wanna be cop that did not qualify so became the boss by other means.
Mind you, motorists the world over are pretty dum at times, way back when i was in the UK they used to have signs up telling you that a camera was operating on that stretch of road and still got the money rolling in.

Lou Girardin
31st July 2004, 16:06
Approved vehicle surveillance equipment are our beloved speed cameras. They do not have a 'go to jail speed', you have to have Plod present to take your keys.

40 km's over, it takes how long to reach that from a 100 on a bike?
Still, it'll be all OK when the Police aren't allowed to chase people.