It's soooooo unfair (sniffle)

[BMWST?]

Oh bullshit. When the law is blatantly, stupidly unfair, it is your duty as a citizen to disobey. I refer of course to ACC levy/registration, which is only a cash grab. I do see some justification for WOF and driver/rider licencing. So driver licence, sure, WOF, no problem, but you can stick your rego up your bum.

if you pay the actual rego part or even some of the acc levy but not all i will believe your argument.Do you?

[Scuba_Steve]

Exactly why I agree with the plate recognition ability. You play the numbers game and are 'betting' on the fact of being invisible will hide you from being stopped....
I own 3 bikes over 1000cc... one on hold 2 currently on the road, my partner has a car and a can am, so we wof/rego/insure 4 vehicles. The only reason anyone here is grizzling about 'loss or freedom/liberty/human rights... yada yada' is because they are one of the ones who ARE costing the rest of us more. Not just financialy, but image, (hooligan bikies, no regard for the law etc). Simple answer is? MAN THE FUCK UP. WOF/REGO your vehicles or ride a fucking bus! If you cant afford the rego? then how can you afford to run the bike (maintain it) properly!
I have no doubt I am going to get flamed for this.... and I really dont give a rats arse. I want to see compulsory insurance as well. It isnt about loss of freedom its about social responsibility.. which so many on here have fuck all of!

So because you like being financially screwed over everyone else should like it too??? and your argument "you can't afford to maintain your vehicle if you can't afford to register every single one & maintain them" :blink: thats like saying if you can afford 4 cars you can afford 8 :weird:
& compulsory insurance :facepalm: just get full cover if your that worried, it's a fuckload cheaper :yes:


I'll 'bite'..... in the event of a low speed (50kph for example) it will prevent you being 'launched' through your windscreen and visiting either the pavement or the occupants of the other vehicle. Satisfied? :shifty:

so in this 50km/h crash where the car would come through my vehicle & crush me (remember I said I drive a van, bout 1mm of steel between you & me) when exactly is the seatbelt going to save my life??? or does it have magic powers I am unaware of??? might as well have lap-belts on bikes they'd do just as good
On the flip side me LandRover where I'd happily wear a seatbelt it is illegal for me to do so, go figure :wacko:

[Berg]

So because you like being financially screwed over everyone else should like it too??? and your argument "you can't afford to maintain your vehicle if you can't afford to register every single one & maintain them" :blink: thats like saying if you can afford 4 cars you can afford 8 :weird:
& compulsory insurance :facepalm: just get full cover if your that worried, it's a fuckload cheaper :yes:



so in this 50km/h crash where the car would come through my vehicle & crush me (remember I said I drive a van, bout 1mm of steel between you & me) when exactly is the seatbelt going to save my life??? or does it have magic powers I am unaware of??? might as well have lap-belts on bikes they'd do just as good
On the flip side me LandRover where I'd happily wear a seatbelt it is illegal for me to do so, go figure :wacko:
Having attended a fatal van crash where the driver (not wearing a seatbelt) was tossed part way through the side window only to have the van roll on him and crush him, I can see why a seatbelt works in a van. No serious damag done to the van. Of course, you might be the best driver in the world too so might never just slip off the side of the road.

[GrayWolf]

So because you like being financially screwed over everyone else should like it too???
I didnt say I ENJOY it, what I said was it is a legal requirement and if you want to be taken seriously, dont give TPTB ANY ammunition to make motoorcyclists in general 'look bad'... If 20% of riders refuse to Rego their bikes, do you THINK for one second the PTTB be will advertise 80% do? NO, they'll quote the X thousand who are thumbing their nose at them... GET IT?
and your argument "you can't afford to maintain your vehicle if you can't afford to register every single one & maintain them" :blink: thats like saying if you can afford 4 cars you can afford 8 :weird: HUH?? Can you explain your 'arguement' please? That doesnt make any logical sense.

& compulsory insurance :facepalm: just get full cover if your that worried, it's a fuckload cheaper :yes: Again HUH? how is full cover cheaper? even if there was a mandatory TP insurance, how the F**K do you work out it will be more expensive than a fully comprehensive cover?



so in this 50km/h crash where the car would come through my vehicle & crush me (remember I said I drive a van, bout 1mm of steel between you & me) when exactly is the seatbelt going to save my life??? or does it have magic powers I am unaware of??? might as well have lap-belts on bikes they'd do just as good
On the flip side me LandRover where I'd happily wear a seatbelt it is illegal for me to do so, go figure :wacko:

Errrr :facepalm: I really dont have an answer fior that illogic.... sorry!

[davereid]

I can't imagine why anyone would want compulsory third party insurance.

(1) If you have 3rd party insurance in NZ, it includes first party cover.
If compulsory insurance comes in we will lose this neat system. And the number of people with insurance in NZs voluntary system is as high as in countries with compulsory cover.

(2) If you have 3rd party insurance in NZ, it includes first party cover.
So why worry about the other guys insurance ? If you have cover you are insured even if he is not.

(3) If you think the other chaps third party insurance will help you, you are likely to be mistaken. If he is drunk, outside the terms of his learner licence, curfew or carrying passengers, his insurance will not pay out.

(4) To get the same cover as you get now, you will have to buy comprehensive insurance, as we will lose the first party cover included in our current third party cover.

(5) You will NEVER get paid out without a court case. Litigatious specialist third party only insurers will arrive to turn the crap in cream by the simple method of disputing everything and find that even though THEIR client ran a red light, YOU failed to stop in half the distance of clear road, and therefore were also partially liable.

(6) You had better hope your insurerer doesnt go broke from an earthquake when you still have 40 years of care to be paid for after falling off and breaking your back hitting a wire rope barrrier, put there by the NZTA, who by law cannot be held liable.

[GrayWolf]

I can't imagine why anyone would want compulsory third party insurance.

(1) If you have 3rd party insurance in NZ, it includes first party cover.
If compulsory insurance comes in we will lose this neat system. And the number of people with insurance in NZs voluntary system is as high as in countries with compulsory cover.

(2) If you have 3rd party insurance in NZ, it includes first party cover.
So why worry about the other guys insurance ? If you have cover you are insured even if he is not.

(3) If you think the other chaps third party insurance will help you, you are likely to be mistaken. If he is drunk, outside the terms of his learner licence, curfew or carrying passengers, his insurance will not pay out.

(4) To get the same cover as you get now, you will have to buy comprehensive insurance, as we will lose the first party cover included in our current third party cover.

(5) You will NEVER get paid out without a court case. Litigatious specialist third party only insureres will arrive to turn the crap in cream by the simple method of disputing everything and find that even thought THEIR client ran a red light, YOU failed to stop in half the distance of clear road, and therefore were also partially liable.

(6) You had better hope your insurerer doesnt go broke from an earthquake when you still have 40 years of care to be paid for after falling off and breaking your back hitting a wire rope barrrier, put their by the NZTA, who by law cannot be held liable.

Ok lets clarify something here, we are talking MOTOR insurance not bloody personal injury/accident insurance, so please dont confuse the 2 of them.

3rd Party insurance? Covers the 'other party' or the damage you may do if you are at fault. 3rd party will NOT fix your bike if you are at fault. SO if you have to claim recompense? Yes it's a civil court case, wheras with 'fully comprehensive' I can leave it to my own insurance company to negotiate with the other parties. Or and this is WHY I want compulsory insurance. In the event of the turd having no insurance, and of course will have to 'pay it off'; the thousands of dollars of repairs to my bike will be done. I may well lose my own 'no claims bonus' which is really pissy, but at least my bike will be fixed or replaced. There is NO scheme in NZ at this time that gives both 1st and 3rd party cover for free to motor vehicle damage.
Why should I pay my rego/Wof/insurance only to get screwed over by some numbnuts who is 'making a stand'? Or, similarly cannot afford to maintain /rego/insure their vehicle? No WOF or REGO also can invalidate insurance cover, so does drunk driving etc.... but at least with 'cover' I have the way of getting recompense for the damage, and believe me if you are uninsured? They (companies) love civil court cases to reclaim their losses.
it is ludicrous to have a system where someone can use a powered vehicle, that could even through no bad driving ( tyre blow out for example) can cause damage to property, or injure people to have no form of insurance.

[davereid]

You are incorrect.

Third party motorvehicle insurance usually has first party cover where you can identify the at fault party.

(And if you cant identify him, his cover is unlikely to be of value to you.)

AMI and AA give you $4000 cover.
http://www.aainsurance.co.nz/car-insurance/third-party.html?2473PSEM&gclid=CJfj6PTh4q0CFSlLpgodb2NZ-A

My insurance gives me market value.

So I have all the cover that a compulsory third party scheme would offer, except by world standards a low level of litigation, and very low costs.

[GrayWolf]

You are incorrect.

Third party motorvehicle insurance usually has first party cover where you can identify the at fault party.

(And if you cant identify him, his cover is unlikely to be of value to you.)

AMI and AA give you $4000 cover.
http://www.aainsurance.co.nz/car-insurance/third-party.html?2473PSEM&gclid=CJfj6PTh4q0CFSlLpgodb2NZ-A

My insurance gives me market value.

So I have all the cover that a compulsory third party scheme would offer, except by world standards a low level of litigation, and very low costs.

QUOTE: Third Party insurance is not about protecting your car. It's about protecting yourself in case you accidentally damage someone else's car or property.
Even if you drive a car that you could afford to replace yourself, you could still face a bill for thousands of dollars if you rear-end the car in front or crash into someone's fence.



What you are citing is a company addition or a 'as well as'. It isnt the legal requirement or definition, of 3rd party insurance.

quote: Uninsured driver protection

If there's an accident and you weren't at fault but you can identify who was and they're uninsured, we'll pay up to $4,000 to repair your car.
That ia exactly what I was saying previously.... insurance companies LOVE civil suites to reclaim their losses, and the AA insurance would 'as sure as' go for the at fault driver.

[Kickaha]

(1) If you have 3rd party insurance in NZ, it includes first party cover.


Third party motorvehicle insurance usually has first party cover where you can identify the at fault party..

Those are two quite different statements

I don't want compulsory third party as I think it would see us get shafted on the price of the cover

[MSTRS]

(1) If you have 3rd party insurance in NZ, it includes first party cover.


Not normally. Some companies MAY offer that in a policy to some people. Some also offer Fire and Theft cover too.
But again, not normally.
Usually 3rd party ONLY COVERS the damage you do to someone else's property, be that vehicle or other...

[davereid]

What you are citing is a company addition or a 'as well as'. It isnt the legal requirement or definition, of 3rd party insurance.

So what.

I pay third party premium, get first party cover.
I dont have to litigate its all done for me.
I have as many vehicles on the road with cover as they do in countries where its compulsory.

My premuims $60 a year for all this cover.

Whats compulsory third party cost for a 1200 cc motorcycle in the UK ? bet its more than $60.

All compulsory insurance will do is make insurance expensive.

[davereid]

Not normally. Some companies MAY offer that in a policy to some people. Some also offer Fire and Theft cover too.

Most NZ companies offer this cover as a part of standard third party. Im not actually aware of any that DONT offer it.
So I think its fair to say that third party insurance includes first party cover.

And if they dont why would you shop there ? Cross the road to an insurer that includes it.

The key is, with our current system,

If YOU buy third party cover, at our very cheap rates, YOU don't need to worry if the other chap buys it or not. Its his problem.

Why bring in compulsory insurance, to gain no higher levels of cover, much higher premuims and US style battles for everything ?

[GrayWolf]

So what.

I pay third party premium, get first party cover.
I dont have to litigate its all done for me.
I have as many vehicles on the road with cover as they do in countries where its compulsory.

My premuims $60 a year for all this cover.

Whats compulsory third party cost for a 1200 cc motorcycle in the UK ? bet its more than $60.

All compulsory insurance will do is make insurance expensive.

sometimes a pictures says it all.......

255674

[MSTRS]

Well, Dave, we'd all sure like to know which company offers all that cover under 3rd Party and all for $60pa.
I have full cover @ $300ish pa and best I can find for 3rd Party is about half that, and it MIGHT include fire/theft.

[Scuba_Steve]

how is full cover cheaper? even if there was a mandatory TP insurance, how the F**K do you work out it will be more expensive than a fully comprehensive cover?

if mandatory third party insurance came in You, yes thats right YOU would be subsidizing the dropkicks that otherwise could not get insurance.
Currently you have the option of going full cover & protecting yourself from these dropkicks for a somewhat reasonable fee, but if insurance companies are going to be forced to insure dropkicks that otherwise wouldn't have insurance & maintain profit increases, someones gotta pay & the dropkicks can't afford their cost on their own, so the insurance company is just going to pass those costs onto you whether you like it or not because its mandatory

So just be thankful you have a cheaper system than mandatory, stop complaining you want to increase the cost of insurance at no benefit & if your really worried about the dropkicks just make sure you have full

Study showed around 93% of NZ drivers had some sort of insurance & of those whom had none 89% were uninsurable

[Gremlin]

An ANPR camera will just see a fully licensed TGB Moped, and wave me on.

Great idea I reckon.
There was a ANPR van on the Southern Motorway, positioned at the end of the Hobson St onramp heading south on Saturday. One slight hitch, one camera was pointing backwards, up the ramp, the other pointed forward on the motorway lanes getting everyone from behind... so my bike was never checked on the on ramp :laugh:

Still... all t's crossed and i's dotted. 15,000km a year around the city, I'd be a moron not to. :mellow:

[davereid]

Well, Dave, we'd all sure like to know which company offers all that cover under 3rd Party and all for $60pa.
I have full cover @ $300ish pa and best I can find for 3rd Party is about half that, and it MIGHT include fire/theft.

Actually I was a bit misleading, I pay $60 for the moped and $120 for the BMW from my brokers, and I do not have fire or theft. Or windscreen.

[davereid]

sometimes a pictures says it all.......255674

I think that picture said you are just trying to hide from the facts... didn't see any sensible (or even typical) response from you.

[GrayWolf]

Study showed around 93% of NZ drivers had some sort of insurance & of those whom had none 89% were uninsurable

which means that with a compulsory and lets add the UK, legal requirement.. those 'dropkicks' are going to be found eventualy and 'removed'...
You are ALREADY subsidising those 'dropkicks' with your ACC levies......

[Scuba_Steve]

which means that with a compulsory and lets add the UK, legal requirement.. those 'dropkicks' are going to be found eventualy and 'removed'...
You are ALREADY subsidising those 'dropkicks' with your ACC levies......

:rofl: I'm sorry, I think you'll find these dropkicks still on the road in the UK, compulsory insurance does nothing except raise prices.
As for ACC, separate issue & I'm quite happy to subsidize everyone under the original workings. I'm not happy with the privatization scheme its currently working under

[GrayWolf]

I think that picture said you are just trying to hide from the facts... didn't see any sensible (or even typical) response from you.

because sometimes it is apparent that you will come across one who will refuse to accept there is another side to an arguement. (All i see is a typical entrenched response from you)...... What the cost difference between your 3rd party insurance and a fully comprehensive is,, the value of your bike is a factor in fully comp. In your case? a $4000 payment would all but replace your BMW, it certainly isnt going to replace my MT, is it?
There can be arguement for and against compulsory insurance, at the end of the day I support it, I came from a place where it has been in force for many decades. Basicaly it works, and the incidents of non compliance? I would suspect has risen in correlation to unemployment and/or low income. To be honest? I have seen youngsters on the rock n roll with cars valued at higher costs than they can reasonably expect to afford (running costs etc). Maybe I am an old F**Ker? Society has become an "I want the best' now and I wont settle for crap".. so Joe blo on the benifit has a smoking old mitsi glx etc?? Nah more likely a bloody decent looking car that he's paying off on our taxes. Then cant afford full maintanance etc.. so the vehicle degenerates and becomes a liability over a few years....
I'll stand by wanting compulsory car insurance, as equaly as you will stand against it......

[scumdog]

I can't imagine why anyone would want compulsory third party insurance.

(1) If you have 3rd party insurance in NZ, it includes first party cover.
If compulsory insurance comes in we will lose this neat system. And the number of people with insurance in NZs voluntary system is as high as in countries with compulsory cover.

(2) If you have 3rd party insurance in NZ, it includes first party cover.
So why worry about the other guys insurance ? If you have cover you are insured even if he is not.

.
So why is there the need/want for anything OTHER than 3rd party insurance?:blink::confused:

[davereid]

which means that with a compulsory and lets add the UK, legal requirement.. those 'dropkicks' are going to be found eventualy and 'removed'... ...

At what cost ?

If you want insurance go and get it.

As I have already shown, for modest cost you can buy third party insurance, and you are covered against those dropkicks.

You dont need to worry if they are insured as long as you are.

What would my BMW cost to insure under the British CTP scheme you clearly love ?

No pictures please, adults can read, use a number you can backup.

[Drew]

This thread used to be cool.

Fuck you Scummy and Rastus!

[davereid]

So why is there the need/want for anything OTHER than 3rd party insurance?:blink::confused:

Because the reason for your crash may not involve another driver, so so you may wish to cover yourself. Or you may need more than the $3-4k cover you get. If you cant identify the other driver you are also not covered, but of course thats the same for compulsory cover.

[scumdog]

Because the reason for your crash may not involve another driver, so so you may wish to cover yourself. Or you may need more than the $3-4k cover you get. If you cant identify the other driver you are also not covered, but of course thats the same for compulsory cover.

Then I'll stick with my type of insurance, don't cost me much.

No worries and had five windscreens for 0$$$

[davereid]

because sometimes it is apparent that you will come across one who will refuse to accept there is another side to an arguement. (All i see is a typical entrenched response from you)...... What the cost difference between your 3rd party insurance and a fully comprehensive is,, the value of your bike is a factor in fully comp. In your case? a $4000 payment would all but replace your BMW, it certainly isnt going to replace my MT, is it?
There can be arguement for and against compulsory insurance, at the end of the day I support it, I came from a place where it has been in force for many decades. Basicaly it works, and the incidents of non compliance? I would suspect has risen in correlation to unemployment and/or low income. To be honest? I have seen youngsters on the rock n roll with cars valued at higher costs than they can reasonably expect to afford (running costs etc). Maybe I am an old F**Ker? Society has become an "I want the best' now and I wont settle for crap".. so Joe blo on the benifit has a smoking old mitsi glx etc?? Nah more likely a bloody decent looking car that he's paying off on our taxes. Then cant afford full maintanance etc.. so the vehicle degenerates and becomes a liability over a few years....
I'll stand by wanting compulsory car insurance, as equaly as you will stand against it......

If you want to ride your MT relying only on the third party cover of the other person, thats your choice. But making it compulsory for him to have it wont improve you odds, as on average he is as likely to have it in NZ as in the UK.

So, in NZ simply buying 3rd party gives you $3-4K of protection against him you did not have in UK. Buy better insurance if you want it same as you would have in UK.

[GrayWolf]

:rofl: I'm sorry, I think you'll find these dropkicks still on the road in the UK, compulsory insurance does nothing except raise prices.
As for ACC, separate issue & I'm quite happy to subsidize everyone under the original workings. I'm not happy with the privatization scheme its currently working under

i wont disagree there are dropkicks on the road without insurance there...but,,, the car crusher removes said offenders vehicle quite effectively! I would also admit that the level of traffic over there could indeed make playing that 'numbers game' more favourable than here, hence the invention of number plate recognition systems. Compulsory insurance may increase the prices.. but then there will be age factor, experience, type of vehicle that will also 'dictate' the insurance bracket for your premium. So the young 20yr old with a 1000cc? is going to pay through the nostrils, often it will effectively price them out of the market to purchase the machine. Would you consider that a bad thing?
It would also mean those with Holden/Ford V8 FPV/HSV's are going to be 'tolled' at a higher premium. lets cut through the shit and be realistic... under the present regieme here,,, a 20yr old can buy and run a tuned Evo/WRX which is capable of 250kph+ and acceleration equal or even superior to a mid sized sprot bike. Or, just own one of said 600cc+ sprot bikes without any form of accident cover. Is that really what you would call an acceptable and realistic scenario? if it was you whose car/bike was totalled by one and neither of you have insurance? Who is going to pay for your vehicle? Who will replace your pride and joy at $5 a week, after the long wait for a court hearing?
Thats the 'cost' of insurance I guess, and its a choice at present whether you take it.

[scumdog]

If you want to ride your MT relying only on the third party cover of the other person, thats your choice. But making it compulsory for him to have it wont improve you odds, as on average he is as likely to have it in NZ as in the UK.

So, in NZ simply buying 3rd party gives you $3-4K of protection against him you did not have in UK. Buy better insurance if you want it same as you would have in UK.

4K?
If the air-bags go off you won't be fixing it.

Only good if you have an old shitter....

[GrayWolf]

If you want to ride your MT relying only on the third party cover of the other person, thats your choice. But making it compulsory for him to have it wont improve you odds, as on average he is as likely to have it in NZ as in the UK.

So, in NZ simply buying 3rd party gives you $3-4K of protection against him you did not have in UK. Buy better insurance if you want it same as you would have in UK.

HUH?? where did you come to that conclusion? I certainly do not rely on the 'other's' 3rd party insurance. You are quite correct in your statement it protects me from the dropkick, it protects me from something beyond my control, my cover protects me from 'me' as well. I am content to pay that 'price' for the peice of mind it brings me, just as you are content to ride your BMW and have the level of cover you have. I am pretty damn sure though, if you had an $18,000 bike in your damend garage, you would not be sitting there espousing how good the 3rd party, $4000 uninsured driver cover you currently have is.
I could be wrong on that, you may be one of those with no household insurance either. After all what is the statistical probability you will actualy need to use it? Likely to be a lower risk than a claim for an accident on your motorcycle. I havent claimed on my insurance for over 15 yrs, last time was due to the bike being knocked over in a parking area. 3rd party would not have been a lot of help there, no one was around to take responsibility or to 'finger' as the culprit.

[Scuba_Steve]

i wont disagree there are dropkicks on the road without insurance there...but,,, the car crusher removes said offenders vehicle quite effectively! I would also admit that the level of traffic over there could indeed make playing that 'numbers game' more favourable than here, hence the invention of number plate recognition systems. Compulsory insurance may increase the prices.. but then there will be age factor, experience, type of vehicle that will also 'dictate' the insurance bracket for your premium. So the young 20yr old with a 1000cc? is going to pay through the nostrils, often it will effectively price them out of the market to purchase the machine. Would you consider that a bad thing?
It would also mean those with Holden/Ford V8 FPV/HSV's are going to be 'tolled' at a higher premium. lets cut through the shit and be realistic... under the present regieme here,,, a 20yr old can buy and run a tuned Evo/WRX which is capable of 250kph+ and acceleration equal or even superior to a mid sized sprot bike. Or, just own one of said 600cc+ sprot bikes without any form of accident cover. Is that really what you would call an acceptable and realistic scenario? if it was you whose car/bike was totalled by one and neither of you have insurance? Who is going to pay for your vehicle? Who will replace your pride and joy at $5 a week, after the long wait for a court hearing?
Thats the 'cost' of insurance I guess, and its a choice at present whether you take it.

I would rather be left with the choice of affordable insurance cover then be forced to pay unaffordable insurance cover I would rather pay 500 for full cover than 1500 for 3rd party alone I would rather have 20yr olds on the road then not, I would like freedom of choice when it comes to vehicles.
If you want restrictions I hear theres already a country offering these, maybee you should move there?

[GrayWolf]

I would rather be left with the choice of affordable insurance cover then be forced to pay unaffordable insurance cover I would rather pay 500 for full cover than 1500 for 3rd party alone I would rather have 20yr olds on the road then not, I would like freedom of choice when it comes to vehicles.
If you want restrictions I hear theres already a country offering these, maybee you should move there?



This really does explain why NZ drivers are such arrogant assholes on the road....... I give up! :corn:

[Kickaha]

This thread used to be cool.

Fuck you Scummy and Rastus!

Not their fault every other cunt decided to turn it into an insurance thread but being donut munchers they probably deserve a big "fuck you" anyway

(lucky I aint heading south anytime soon and hopefully Rastus doesn't know what I drive)

[merv]

Scummy and Rastus seem like OK cops to me, and then there was that other bloke we don't seem to hear from these days - spudchucker - whatever happened to him?

[MSTRS]

Scummy and Rastus seem like OK cops to me, and then there was that other bloke we don't seem to hear from these days - spudchucker - whatever happened to him?

Oh - he's still here. He must have been an intelligence/attitude transplant donor though. Goes by another login now...
Nodman and Dynamytus were good value too. As was Patrick.

[scracha]

:shit:...Oh god noooo!!

Please don't!!, you have no idea how hard it was for our design teams to set up the secure channels and network security & routes etc for these bloody things! :angry2:


Eh? This is 2012. Should have taken about 5 minutes?? Oh wait....taxpayers money must be spent reinventing the wheel.

[Edbear]

Then I'll stick with my type of insurance, don't cost me much.

No worries and had five windscreens for 0$$$

Five windsreens..? What do you do with them? :blink:

[baffa]

Regarding third party, that little feature that some of you noticed giving $4000 cover to your vehicle, is only if the person who causes the damage gives you their details and accepts liability. And if they hit and run, you get nadda.

If you have an old bomb, third party is fine, but for anything of value, full cover is best.

[steve_t]

Five windsreens..? What do you do with them? :blink:

Must be a tailgater :corn:

[MSTRS]

Regarding third party, that little feature that some of you noticed giving $4000 cover to your vehicle, is only if the person who causes the damage gives you their details and accepts liability. And if they hit and run, you get nadda.

If you have an old bomb, third party is fine, but for anything of value, full cover is best.

Note this. It makes a huge difference to whether you get anything. If they refuse to admit liability, it is extremely difficult. Your insurer will not pursue the matter, it is up to you. You cannot prosecute them in traffic court and if they didn't get a ticket from the cops for causing the crash, or successfully defend it, you get nothing.

[steve_t]

A number of my friends have been in car accidents and while at the scene, the other person has admitted fault, when the paperwork has come back from the insurance companies, they claim to have not admitted fault.

[Edbear]

A number of my friends have been in car accidents and while at the scene, the other person has admitted fault, when the paperwork has come back from the insurance companies, they claim to have not admitted fault.

Par for the course I'm afraid. The Insurance companies always tell their clients to never admit fault in any accident.

[StoneY]

So you saw me then did you :innocent:

Nope..was me he saw bro.

[davereid]

Regarding third party, that little feature that some of you noticed giving $4000 cover to your vehicle, is only if the person who causes the damage gives you their details and accepts liability. And if they hit and run, you get nadda.

If you have an old bomb, third party is fine, but for anything of value, full cover is best.

The comparison I was drawing was between COMPULSORY third party insurance and our voluntary third party insurance.

I was NOT comparing full insurance, which is your best option.

I made the following points, and I can see I will have to make them again.

(1) The rate of uninsured drivers in New Zealand is about the same as in countries where it is compulsory.

(2) NZ third party cover is very very cheap compared with other countries, but it not likely to stay that way if it were compulsory.

(3) NZ third party cover gives you first party cover.
Yes there are some limitations.
But the compulsory third party system is unlikely to offer you anything except third party.
So by default you will need full insurance to get to the same place on that older vehicle.

(4) Under ANY system if the guy who hits you is uninsured, drunk or unlicenced or does a hit and run, you will be relying on your insurance, not his.

So, if your needs are modest, shop around, buy the best VOLUNTARY third party insurance you can get and the cover may meet your needs. If it does not, buy full insurance.

But if CTP comes in, even if your needs are modest, to be sure you can fix your vehicle when someone else crashes into it, you will need full cover.

[rastuscat]

Par for the course I'm afraid. The Insurance companies always tell their clients to never admit fault in any accident.

Yes, and KB members always deny fault, even if it's obviously theirs.

[Edbear]

Yes, and KB members always deny fault, even if it's obviously theirs.

That's not my fault of course... :innocent:

[trustme]

Yes, and KB members always deny fault, even if it's obviously theirs.

That's what lawyers teach us, say SF all , deny deny.
As an aside , I once said a bit too much to an authority & definitely regretted it.;

[scumdog]

Five windsreens..? What do you do with them? :blink:

Just our good South Island roads...:D

Actually trucks going the other way on gravel roads accounted for most of them.

And I'm talkin' about a 40 year duration..

[GrayWolf]

The comparison I was drawing was between COMPULSORY third party insurance and our voluntary third party insurance.



(3) NZ third party cover gives you first party cover.
Yes there are some limitations.
But the compulsory third party system is unlikely to offer you anything except third party.
So by default you will need full insurance to get to the same place on that older vehicle.



no it doesnt.. You constantly 'misquote' this.... as the opening page on your insurance companies website states, 3rd party ONLY covers damage YOU do to another's vehicle or property...
the $4000 dollar 1st party cover they provide is their own ADDITION to the cover

[Ollie.T]

Well, I blew it.

Wrote out a ticket to a motorcylclist for Drove With Wrong Class of Licence 'cos he only had a car licence. $400 ta!

He was on a 450 traillie riding around town.

No:
Rego
WOF
Indicators
Number plate


He was cool, had a puurty mouth, no attitude, didn;t try to run/hide..

So I gave it to him.

Why? Cos I wanted to, it's the way I roll.



:shit:

just jokes...

[StoneY]

Yes, and KB members always deny fault, even if it's obviously theirs.

We do fuckin not.............. how can we ever be at fault? We are Kiwi Bikers after all man wake up!

[davereid]

no it doesnt.. You constantly 'misquote' this.... as the opening page on your insurance companies website states, 3rd party ONLY covers damage YOU do to another's vehicle or property...
the $4000 dollar 1st party cover they provide is their own ADDITION to the cover

Yawn. Buy the third party policy, you get the first party cover.

You are clearly clever enough to find somewhere you can buy third party and not get the first party cover, so piss off and spend your money there.

I will buy the third party policy that gives me the first party cover.

[MSTRS]

Have you ever 'put it to the test'?

[sleemanj]

You cannot prosecute them in traffic court and if they didn't get a ticket from the cops for causing the crash, or successfully defend it, you get nothing.

This is what the disputes tribunal is for.

Have had exactly the situation you described some years ago, me 3rd party STATE, they AMI, they denied liability, STATE could not help because they denied.

Went to disputes tribunal (both the driver and the insurance rep appeared). I won. AMI paid me out.

Of course if they hadn't been insured it would have been more difficult, but by no means impossible, once you have the DT ruling there are means to extract payment if they are not forthcoming.

[MSTRS]

This is what the disputes tribunal is for.

*rare success story*

Of course if they hadn't been insured it would have been more difficult, but by no means impossible, once you have the DT ruling there are means to extract payment if they are not forthcoming.

There are means...he's called Bubba. And sometimes that's the only recourse you have...

[rastuscat]

Interesting to see where this thread had careered off to. Ah well, so be it. e still have to find another 29 pages, so bring it on.

Popos attend crashes for a number of reasons.

The NZTA has a CAS database based on TCRs (Traffic Crash Reports), so the beast needs feeding. Popos turn up, do an analysis, fill out the report and move on to the next job. The top copy of the TCR goes to the NZTA, and everyones happy, except the poor buggers who crashed. The stats are used for a lot of reasons, which is the subject of lots of threads here anyway. Charlie Lamb can give you a really interesting view on CAS, I have a few too, but that's another story.

Sometimes (most times actually), when you do an analysis, however brief, it leads you to see who/what caused the crash. Once you have learned who caused it, normally you write them a ticket for the offence which led to the crash. Nobody deliberately causes a crash, but anyone who breaks the rules badly enough to have caused a crash probably deserves to be prosecuted.

For example, I see someone pull out of a give way into the path of an oncoming vehicle, which brakes to an emergency stop 6 inches short of the numpty who failed to give way. I write the plonker a ticket for failing to give way, or maybe careless driving. If I attend a crash where someone has pulled out into the path of an oncoming vehicle and a crash has resulted, why wouldn't I write the same ticket or worse?

Anyway, back to point 1. Often people call the Popos to attend a crash they are involved in to make sure their insurance company will pay out. Confirming details, liability, all that sort of thing.

So we have several parties that want to Popo to attend, but all for different reasons. One thing that shocks people is when we tell them that we can't make anyone fix their car. That's the role of first the insurance companies, and the disputes tribunal if the insurance can't sort it out.

In summary, the Popos don't attend crashes to help people get their vehicles fixed. We attend to offer assistance, prevent further injury or damage (clear the road etc), gather stats, establish liability, and take such action as is necessary based on our view of liability. Probably a couple of reasons too, but those are the main ones.

Wanna get your vehicle fixed after a crash? Have full insurance. It's not fool proof, but it's the best chance you have.

Donuts.

[baffa]

Rant.

Wat.

You seem to make sense, and then go and undo it all again.

Re my last post, I work in insurance, so I have a fair understanding of how it works. I see time and time again poor advice given online, so I'm just pointing out what should already be obvious.

[scumdog]

Often people call the Popos to attend a crash they are involved in to make sure their insurance company will pay out. Confirming details, liability, all that sort of thing.



Too often I get people turning up to work a bit of time after a fender-bender saying "Aw we didn't want to call the cops, he said he was in the wrong and so we thought we'd sort it out amongst ourselves but now he won't pay, he reckons it was my fault, what can you do to make him pay"?? .

THAT is why I say get the cops involved at the scene, it's too late two weeks after the event.

Of course if you suspect you are 'in the wrong' your thoughts may be different...

[red mermaid]

I know how you feel, everyone is an expert especially on KB, at the job they dont do.




Re my last post, I work in insurance, so I have a fair understanding of how it works. I see time and time again poor advice given online, so I'm just pointing out what should already be obvious.

[scumdog]

I know how you feel, everyone is an expert especially on KB, at the job they dont do.

Troo Dat.

Might be fun if we knew what some of the others on KB do for a job..... - we may be able to give them 'expert' assistance to do it properly...:whistle:

[Edbear]

Troo Dat.

Might be fun if we knew what some of the others on KB do for a job..... - we may be able to give them 'expert' assistance to do it properly...:whistle:

Wunderful idea! I sell and supply fire protection equipment, dive camera masks and Shorai batteries.... How do I make my first $million in the next six months?:sunny:

[Scuba_Steve]

Troo Dat.

Might be fun if we knew what some of the others on KB do for a job..... - we may be able to give them 'expert' assistance to do it properly...:whistle:

I post on KB & surf teh interwebs...

I'm sure theres something more important their paying me for tho?...

Telecommunications - What advise ya got for me??? :D

[skippa1]

Troo Dat.

Might be fun if we knew what some of the others on KB do for a job..... - we may be able to give them 'expert' assistance to do it properly...:whistle:

I could do with some helpful advice or assistance:blink:......I'm a buisness manager and want to be a gazillionaire:yes:

[Scuba_Steve]

I could do with some helpful advice or assistance:blink:......I'm a buisness manager and want to be a gazillionaire:yes:

Stop managing start owning would be the 1st step :yes:

[skippa1]

Stop managing start owning would be the 1st step :yes:

aw nah....been there. Owned my own business for 15 years:yes:. Nice to collect a fat salary and not worry about GST, PAYE, provisional, ACC.....on it goes:pinch:. Ah fuck being a gazillionaire<_<

actually....not good at taking advice either haha

[red mermaid]

Part of the evil empire of Telecom?



I post on KB & surf teh interwebs...

I'm sure theres something more important their paying me for tho?...

Telecommunications - What advise ya got for me??? :D

[bikaholic]

I know how you feel, everyone is an expert especially on KB, at the job they dont do.The 80/20 rule applies to job they do turn up for as well.

[Scuba_Steve]

Part of the evil empire of Telecom?

Na behind the scenes, work with Telecom, Vodafone, Transpower, DHB, etc, etc, etc

I do own the Evil Empire tho if that helps

[smoky]

Interesting.

One of my troops uses his new SMART device to run checks on every motorbike that goes past when he's at a checkpoint.

More than half of them show as having no WoF, no registration, registration on hold, or the rider having no or the incorrect licence.

There was me thinking all bike riders were law abiding citizens who we cops picked on totally unfairly. Seems it's fair after all.

Troll.

Yeah right, you cops wouldn't know if your own arse was on fire, SMART device! fuck sake give me a break.


Troll right back at ya

[Ender EnZed]

Regarding third party, that little feature that some of you noticed giving $4000 cover to your vehicle, is only if the person who causes the damage gives you their details and accepts liability. And if they hit and run, you get nadda.

If you have an old bomb, third party is fine, but for anything of value, full cover is best.The comparison I was drawing was between COMPULSORY third party insurance and our voluntary third party insurance.

I was NOT comparing full insurance, which is your best option.

I made the following points, and I can see I will have to make them again.

(1) The rate of uninsured drivers in New Zealand is about the same as in countries where it is compulsory.

(2) NZ third party cover is very very cheap compared with other countries, but it not likely to stay that way if it were compulsory.

(3) NZ third party cover gives you first party cover. To make this clearer, I'm going to reword it: It is the case in NZ that many insurance companies' third party cover includes ~$4k cover for your vehicle if you get hit by an uninsured party who admits liability.
Yes there are some limitations.
But the compulsory third party system is unlikely to offer you anything except third party.
So by default you will need full insurance to get to the same place on that older vehicle.

(4) Under ANY system if the guy who hits you is uninsured, drunk or unlicenced or does a hit and run, you will be relying on your insurance, not his.

So, if your needs are modest, shop around, buy the best VOLUNTARY third party insurance you can get and the cover may meet your needs. If it does not, buy full insurance.

But if CTP comes in, even if your needs are modest, to be sure you can fix your vehicle when someone else crashes into it, you will need full cover.Wat.

You seem to make sense, and then go and undo it all again.

Re my last post, I work in insurance, so I have a fair understanding of how it works. I see time and time again poor advice given online, so I'm just pointing out what should already be obvious.

Sorry for the massive quote but I'm just trying to make myself clear.

As far as I'm aware, everything in the inner two quote boxes is correct. Can you explain where davereid has got it wrong? If you replace his text that I've yellowed with my text in red then does it become correct?


Wunderful idea! I sell and supply fire protection equipment .... How do I make my first $million in the next six months?:sunny:

I'd suggest starting some fires. :niceone:

[rastuscat]

I could do with some helpful advice or assistance:blink:......I'm a buisness manager and want to be a gazillionaire:yes:

Here's some advice sure to make you at least a zillion.

Learn to spell.

[scumdog]

Yeah right, you cops wouldn't know if your own arse was on fire, SMART device! fuck sake give me a break.


Troll right back at ya

No Points.

No originality

[Gremlin]

Might be fun if we knew what some of the others on KB do for a job..... - we may be able to give them 'expert' assistance to do it properly...:whistle:
Oooh, yes please. Contract Network Management, well, I'm just a Senior Network Engineer. How do I stop my clients breaking stuff? :innocent:

Stop managing start owning would be the 1st step :yes:
Hell no... not in NZ at this stage. Government and red tape is far too harsh, not to mention the IRD trying to run you into the ground.

[mossy1200]

This wasnt at roundabout and one rider unlawfull was trying get knee down???

[Berries]

Might be fun if we knew what some of the others on KB do for a job..... - we may be able to give them 'expert' assistance to do it properly...:whistle:
I fuck sheep.

Go on then.

[Brian407]

actually....not good at taking advice either haha

Well you're in absolutely the right place here then...

[scumdog]

I fuck sheep.

Go on then.

Well I use to fuck them too.

Cutting their throats tends to do that.

Steeling the knife every third sheep makes the job easier.

Glad to have helped!

[StoneY]

Troo Dat.

Might be fun if we knew what some of the others on KB do for a job..... - we may be able to give them 'expert' assistance to do it properly...:whistle:

I used to fix computers... now I crunch number created by the customers and computer fixers...all very boring indeed.

[avgas]

Wunderful idea! I sell and supply fire protection equipment, dive camera masks and Shorai batteries.... How do I make my first $million in the next six months?:sunny:
Make it illegal to not have it.
Then fine people over not having it.

[Edbear]

Make it illegal to not have it.
Then fine people over not having it.

I like it! Then tell them I will waive the fine if they buy two! Off me of course...:shifty:

[Pixie]

Interesting.

One of my troops uses his new SMART device to run checks on every motorbike that goes past when he's at a checkpoint.

More than half of them show as having no WoF, no registration, registration on hold, or the rider having no or the incorrect licence.

There was me thinking all bike riders were law abiding citizens who we cops picked on totally unfairly. Seems it's fair after all.

Troll.

Who gives a fuck?

The police are about road safety not revenue.
That is why the parasite is sitting on the side of the road checking bikers' tax status.

[Edbear]

Who gives a fuck?

The police are about road safety not revenue.
That is why the parasite is sitting on the side of the road checking bikers' tax status.

So you're of the opinion that unregistered and unwarranted bike and unlicensed riders are not a safety issue? Why don't we just dispense with licences, WoF's and rego's and let anyone ride or drive whatever they like?

[Pixie]

NO ONE has picked up on the irony of issuing the popo with a device that is SMARTer than they are? no one? c'mon you slackers, have at it.

When they get "issued" with product from the donut shop the wrapper is smarter than they are.

[scumdog]

Who gives a fuck?

The police are about road safety not revenue.
That is why the parasite is sitting on the side of the road checking bikers' tax status.

I wonder how many tickets said parasite checking number-plates wrote out for no WOF etc???

[Scuba_Steve]

Oooh, yes please. Contract Network Management, well, I'm just a Senior Network Engineer. How do I stop my clients breaking stuff? :innocent:


That ones easy, Stop letting them touch it :shutup:

[Gremlin]

That ones easy, Stop letting them touch it :shutup:
What the hell would I charge them for then? :wacko:

[bikaholic]

I wonder how many tickets said parasite checking number-plates wrote out for no WOF etc???I guess, well.......NONE.

SMART device prints them out does it not?<_<

[rastuscat]

I guess, well.......NONE.

SMART device prints them out does it not?<_<

Nope. The SMART device (no, not the Popo) presents information, and the Popo makes a call on what to do with it. It's a tool, not a decision maker.

Just clarifying.

[rastuscat]

When they get "issued" with product from the donut shop the wrapper is smarter than they are.

Doh!!

Must keep tomorrows wrapper, it's SMARTer than me.

[bikaholic]

Nope. The SMART device (no, not the Popo) presents information, and the Popo makes a call on what to do with it. It's a tool, not a decision maker.

Just clarifying.I thought it printed the ticket so SMART ticket receivers did not get off on a typo.

[scumdog]

I thought it printed the ticket so SMART ticket receivers did not get off on a typo.
I thought...

[bikaholic]

I thought...So the PDA does not print out the computer generated ticket then ?

[warewolf]

Interesting.

One of my troops uses his new SMART device to run checks on every motorbike that goes past when he's at a checkpoint.

More than half of them show as having no WoF, no registration, registration on hold, or the rider having no or the incorrect licence.

There was me thinking all bike riders were law abiding citizens who we cops picked on totally unfairly. Seems it's fair after all.

Troll.At the risk of adding some sensibility to this thread... I would like to know how many of them are 'conscientious objectors' to the perceived unfair gouging by ACC? That is, those that paid up when the rate was near that of a motorcar, but now haven't?

Bikes without reg/wof were over-represented in the accident stats. Question number 2; if you add the conscientious objectors to that previous group, how do stats look now for the combined group? That is, are conscientious objectors measurably safer riders than the usual unreg lot? and are they skewing the stats for the whole unreg/unwof group towards 'safer'? Yep, hard to measure I s'pose, but you could look at how long a crashed bike was unreg: only recently = objector, long term = recidivist.

We know that in the first 12(?) months ACC's take was less than normal despite a 3-4 fold increase in fees, due to non-payers. Just don't know how many of those are still in active use.

And before anyone starts ranting about "conscientious objectors" really just being cheap cahns, bear in mind NZ has a long and pround history of civil disobedience by the citizenry to enact their political will.

[warewolf]

I'll say it again. Driving is by habit, most often subconscious. One day you might subconsciously do something that becomes a big problem when there's a vehicle there that you didn't see.And that right there is one of the big philosphical differences I have with the road policing regime. Whilst trivial speeding "offences" are pursued with vigour, gross and blatant failures to drive safely are ignored if they are below some arbitrarily-determined velocity. And then when those same lackadaisical drivers are let loose at higher speed, all those bad habits they are permitted make them a big risk... so all-too late everybody's speed is restricted in a lame attempt to reduce the carnage. Fix the problem at source, don't try to mask the symptoms!

[Sliver]

FFS, i wish the government raised the taxes on donuts.

[bikaholic]

Nope. The SMART device (no, not the Popo) presents information, and the Popo makes a call on what to do with it. It's a tool, not a decision maker.

Just clarifying.http://www.tenone.police.govt.nz/tenone/June11National5.htm

A mobile booky shop then?

[GrayWolf]

And that right there is one of the big philosphical differences I have with the road policing regime. Whilst trivial speeding "offences" are pursued with vigour, gross and blatant failures to drive safely are ignored if they are below some arbitrarily-determined velocity. And then when those same lackadaisical drivers are let loose at higher speed, all those bad habits they are permitted make them a big risk... so all-too late everybody's speed is restricted in a lame attempt to reduce the carnage. Fix the problem at source, don't try to mask the symptoms!

well i have to agree about bad habits,
let me recount one observed today. 11.30am on my way to work (clock on the bike for time) Hutt Valley Moronway, Heading towards Wellington.

I was in the fast lane at 108-110kph just drawing level with the rear of a car in the 'slow lane' about .5km before the Ngauranga gorge turn off. YUP, you guessed it, joe fuckwit on a blue/white GSX 600/750/1000?? decides to 'undertake' me and effectively lane split doing a good 30 kph faster than me, then with no indicator swoops across in front of said car and takes the Ngauranga exit.
best of all? there was bugger all traffic behind the said 'slow lane' vehicle....

[ellipsis]

...this cop has no gizmos...

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Te0V71sGoxA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Kickaha]

gross and blatant failures to drive safely are ignored if they are below some arbitrarily-determined velocity.

And your evidence to support this is where?

[StoneY]

Nice clip...what were the bikes? Speedies?

[oneofsix]

Nice clip...what were the bikes? Speedies?

I see the 'cop' had his helmet on inside the car, you get arrested for that in Palmy. :shutup:

[Kickaha]

fucking hell, the filthy dirty donut munching coppers got me this morning :facepalm:, I was only 14km over the limit and I'm a good driver, far better than most of the peasants on the road, why don't they go and do some real police work and catch some proper criminals blah blah blah

It was only a couple of weeks until I would have been back to zero demerits to :laugh:

[bsasuper]

Pointless thread, not everyone at this point in time can afford rego, wof, and put food on the table for the family which must come first.

To be able to afford a flash phone that does everything, you have not had to suffer hardship at this time, you have no idea how some families have to survive.

I suggest you take your smart phone and shove it where the sun dont shine, even though its "your mates"

[bikaholic]

Pointless thread, not everyone at this point in time can afford rego, wof, and put food on the table for the family which must come first.

To be able to afford a flash phone that does everything, you have not had to suffer hardship at this time, you have no idea how some families have to survive.

I suggest you take your smart phone and shove it where the sun dont shine, even though its "your mates"Occupy KB?

[rastuscat]

FFS, i wish the government raised the taxes on donuts.

Aaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh........... .........noooooooooooooooo......................:s hit:

[scumdog]

To be able to afford a flash phone that does everything, you have not had to suffer hardship at this time, you have no idea how some families have to survive.


Mwahahah, go to South Auckland, Porirua etc and tell THEM that...mwahahaha

[rastuscat]

Who gives a fuck?

The police are about road safety not revenue.
That is why the parasite is sitting on the side of the road checking bikers' tax status.

Another take on that is that the Popo is sitting there checking bikers' attitude status...........

[rastuscat]

So the PDA does not print out the computer generated ticket then ?

The PDA bluetooths to a heat printer, just like in a supermarket. No 4 cents of per litre tho.

No, here's the process.

The Popo gets the PDA to run a check, either manually, or by using the PDA to scan the barcode on the licence label, or drivers licence. The PDA then returns information. Licence expired, reg expired, oF expired, disqualifified driver, arrest warrants etc. The Popo then decides what to do with that information, then uses the PDA to print a ticket if that is the decision. Arrest, if warrants exist.

The PDA doesn't actually make a decision, like a speed camera does. It just presents info, then lets the Popo do with it what he/she will.

Donuts.

[rastuscat]

fucking hell, the filthy dirty donut munching coppers got me this morning :facepalm:, I was only 14km over the limit and I'm a good driver, far better than most of the peasants on the road, why don't they go and do some real police work and catch some proper criminals blah blah blah

It was only a couple of weeks until I would have been back to zero demerits to :laugh:

Can't argue with the blah blah blah bit. The rest is tosh.

[bikaholic]

The PDA bluetooths to a heat printer, just like in a supermarket. No 4 cents of per litre tho.

No, here's the process.

The Popo gets the PDA to run a check, either manually, or by using the PDA to scan the barcode on the licence label, or drivers licence. The PDA then returns information. Licence expired, reg expired, oF expired, disqualifified driver, arrest warrants etc. The Popo then decides what to do with that information, then uses the PDA to print a ticket if that is the decision. Arrest, if warrants exist.

The PDA doesn't actually make a decision, like a speed camera does. It just presents info, then lets the Popo do with it what he/she will.

Donuts.thanks for that, saves having to pulled up to find out. :innocent:

[rastuscat]

Whilst trivial speeding "offences" are pursued with vigour, gross and blatant failures to drive safely are ignored if they are below some arbitrarily-determined velocity. And then when those same lackadaisical drivers are let loose at higher speed, all those bad habits they are permitted make them a big risk... so all-too late everybody's speed is restricted in a lame attempt to reduce the carnage. Fix the problem at source, don't try to mask the symptoms!

Okay, I'll say it again. 96% of the prosecutions my team initiate are for things other than speed.

Wanna start debating THAT fact?

Grrrrrrrr.............

[rastuscat]

We're half way there Team, 25 pages. A few more days of ranting and we'll beat my 50-page record-to-date.

Where's Jack Millar when you need him.............

[caspernz]

Okay, I'll say it again. 96% of the prosecutions my team initiate are for things other than speed.

Wanna start debating THAT fact?

Grrrrrrrr.............

Surprised nobody has challenged this yet....not that I'm disputing it.

The attitude of some posters cracks me up, pleading poverty apparently justifies running around minus rego or wof??

You may need to come up with another controversial comment to incite the masses to achieve that 50 page target...:yes:

[rastuscat]

Surprised nobody has challenged this yet....not that I'm disputing it.

The attitude of some posters cracks me up, pleading poverty apparently justifies running around minus rego or wof??

You may need to come up with another controversial comment to incite the masses to achieve that 50 page target...:yes:

Okay.

Bestiality............is it really that bad? If the goat consents and is over 16, who's the victim?

Noooooooooooooo.....................surely I didn't ask that................:shutup:

[bikaholic]

Okay.

Bestiality............is it really that bad? If the goat consents and is over 16, who's the victim?

Noooooooooooooo.....................surely I didn't ask that................:shutup:and on that note I am going to change topic.

I have been getting out my old trailies to ride on private land of course, not regoed but in excellent condition, indeed some are problematic to register should I decide to pay into the acc pool. :facepalm:
Off road what constitutes 'a road' ?, beaches are apparently but I'm more intersted in rivers covered by the queens chain, even if access is only available via private land. Must a traily have current rego and WOF on this sort of land, withstanding no public is on that river, but are allowed to be if they travel onlong the chain.

[Kickaha]

The Popo gets the PDA to run a check, either manually, or by using the PDA to scan the barcode on the licence label, or drivers licence. The PDA then returns information. Licence expired, reg expired, oF expired, disqualifified driver, arrest warrants etc. The Popo then decides what to do with that information, then uses the PDA to print a ticket if that is the decision. Arrest, if warrants exist.

The guy and girl who nailed me this morning must be given the cheap hand me down shit then, they only had a pad and a pen and said they'd post it out:Police:

[FJRider]

The guy and girl who nailed me this morning must be given the cheap hand me down shit then, they only had a pad and a pen and said they'd post it out:Police:

They must have already got their quota .... if they had no tickets left to issue ... :pinch:

[Kickaha]

They must have already got their quota .... if they had no tickets left to issue ... :pinch:

It isn't a quota it is a "performance target" :shifty:

[rastuscat]

According to Section 2 of the Land Transport Act 1998


road includes—
(a) a street; and
(b) a motorway; and
(c) a beach; and
(d) a place to which the public have access, whether as of right or not; and
(e) all bridges, culverts, ferries, and fords forming part of a road or street or motorway, or a place referred to in paragraph (d); and
(f) all sites at which vehicles may be weighed for the purposes of this Act or any other enactment

Hopefully that clarifies........

[rastuscat]

The guy and girl who nailed me this morning must be given the cheap hand me down shit then, they only had a pad and a pen and said they'd post it out:Police:

Yup. Some Districts have them, some don't yet.

The old books still exist. Actually, the books still work even when the SMART devices lose interest. So even a Popo ith a SMART device will resort to paper when coverage fails, or the device locks up.

It won't happen overnight, but it will happen.

[Scuba_Steve]

and on that note I am going to change topic.

I have been getting out my old trailies to ride on private land of course, not regoed but in excellent condition, indeed some are problematic to register should I decide to pay into the acc pool. :facepalm:
Off road what constitutes 'a road' ?, beaches are apparently but I'm more intersted in rivers covered by the queens chain, even if access is only available via private land. Must a traily have current rego and WOF on this sort of land, withstanding no public is on that river, but are allowed to be if they travel onlong the chain.

To put it simply. If you can get to it, it's a road. The legal definition is that vague :yes:

Actual wording goes something like
road includes—
(a) a street; and
(b) a motorway; and
(c) a beach; and
(d) a place to which the public have access, whether as of right or not; and
(e) all bridges, culverts, ferries, and fords forming part of a road or street or motorway or a place referred to in paragraph; and
(f) all sites at which vehicles may be weighed for the purposes of the Act or any other enactment

See anywhere you can get to is a road, brilliant ain't it?

[bikaholic]

According to Section 2 of the Land Transport Act 1998


road includes—
(a) a street; and
(b) a motorway; and
(c) a beach; and
(d) a place to which the public have access, whether as of right or not; and
(e) all bridges, culverts, ferries, and fords forming part of a road or street or motorway, or a place referred to in paragraph (d); and
(f) all sites at which vehicles may be weighed for the purposes of this Act or any other enactment

Hopefully that clarifies........mmmm that dam '(d)', I guess i'll have to jump over the river.

[red mermaid]

Its about 3 weeks since I gave anyone a speeding ticket.

Seems a lot of people may have been whining cause thats all they can do?


Okay, I'll say it again. 96% of the prosecutions my team initiate are for things other than speed.

Wanna start debating THAT fact?

Grrrrrrrr.............

[bikaholic]

Its about 3 weeks since I gave anyone a speeding ticket.

Seems a lot of people may have been whining cause thats all they can do?I saw on tele a week or so ago the gorge is still closed.
I travelled over the saddle road over xmas, it is a wonder anyone travels through Palmy at all.

[StoneY]

I saw on tele a week or so ago the gorge is still closed.
I travelled over the saddle road over xmas, it is a wonder anyone travels through Palmy at all.

Yeah the state of the P Track is getting abysmal too. :(

[Ocean1]

Yeah the state of the P Track is getting abysmal too. :(

Yeah? I was over that way last weekend, didn't notice it was much worse than usual.

I was wearing the dirt helmet...

[Katman]

Might be fun if we knew what some of the others on KB do for a job..... - we may be able to give them 'expert' assistance to do it properly...:whistle:

I own a motorcycle business.

Kiwibiker taught me every thing I know.

[Ocean1]

mmmm that dam '(d)', I guess i'll have to jump over the river.

Dude! Go ride your dirt bike! This hasn't been a problem since the council traffic dept gave up chasing us on DT250s.

[rastuscat]

Dude! Go ride your dirt bike! This hasn't been a problem since the council traffic dept gave up chasing us on DT250s.

Was making my way back to base at the end of a Highway Patrol shift a few weeks back. (Only did a few weeks on HP before heading back to my city section.) I was taking a back road, basically coz I was trying to finish on time.

Lo and behold, I came across a dude who had just had a day out trail riding. Bike was no reg, WoF, all that. Full on off roader. The guy had all the body armour etc, matching set of stuff, helmet etc. I thought I'd stop him for a chat about the wisdom of riding an off roader on the road, and sure enough, off he goes. Dukes of Hazzard style.

I was in a cage, and with the bells and whistles on, commenced the standard high speed follow. Don't know why we call them a pursuit, basically they are a follow until something happens. Followed the policy to the letter, called it in etc. Guy rode like a nutter, the bike was great on the gravel I'm sure, but wasn't a road bike at all. Anyways, he eventually thought about it, coz he scarpered down a riverbank where the Popo-mobile couldn't go, and that as that. Pleased that he evetually thought about it, anyway. His lucky day, no lines of enquiry.

Did take me back to the bad old days when I started, chasing DT250s around Auckland City on an R80RT. About a fair match in those days. Caught a few, a few got away, that as the game.

Ah well, still, the good days weren't always that good. Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.

:no:

[Ocean1]

Did take me back to the bad old days when I started, chasing DT250s around Auckland City on an R80RT.

No. The cops had the DT250s. And nostelgia or not them were fun days.

Being pinged in the 50 yards between the padock where I practiced on my KT250 and my driveway wasn't so much fun.

[red mermaid]

I thought they were only 125's.

[caspernz]

Okay.

Bestiality............is it really that bad? If the goat consents and is over 16, who's the victim?

Noooooooooooooo.....................surely I didn't ask that................:shutup:

Mmmmm, having had a preview of your new book, I note this comment on taking sheep to the edge of a cliff...not much of a motorcycling focus is it? Or maybe as a north islander I'm misinterpreting :facepalm:.

PS. Your agent mentioned you're lagging behind...too much time on Kiwibiker perhaps:no:

[rastuscat]

Mmmmm, having had a preview of your new book, I note this comment on taking sheep to the edge of a cliff...not much of a motorcycling focus is it? Or maybe as a north islander I'm misinterpreting :facepalm:.

PS. Your agent mentioned you're lagging behind...too much time on Kiwibiker perhaps:no:

I wish I could spel proper so I could rite a book. Not me, my frend.

[skippa1]

I wish I could spel proper so I could rite a book. Not me, my frend.

Better check your own grammar a post or two back before picking at others spelling....either that or your "w" key is poked:shit:

[caspernz]

I wish I could spel proper so I could rite a book. Not me, my frend.

Nah it's nae a problem, dats why da publishers have editing/spelling/grammar drones on slave wages...

[rastuscat]

Just finishing late shift.

Stopped 2 bikers during the shift, both at checkpoints. We were viewing all car drivers licences, so I asked for the riders licences as well.

One, on a Suzuki Intruder, had a learners cage licence. Doh !! Forbidden from riding until he got a licence.

The other, on a GN125, had an expired car and bike licence. Forbidden from driving until he gets a licence.

Two bikes, two strikes. And people wonder why bikers get stopped for random checks.

[Scuba_Steve]

Just finishing late shift.

Stopped 2 bikers during the shift, both at checkpoints. We were viewing all car drivers licences, so I asked for the riders licences as well.

One, on a Suzuki Intruder, had a learners cage licence. Doh !! Forbidden from riding until he got a licence.

The other, on a GN125, had an expired car and bike licence. Forbidden from driving until he gets a licence.

Two bikes, two strikes. And people wonder why bikers get stopped for random checks.

pffft noobs, everyone knows if ya got no licence you do a runner :shutup:

[FJRider]

pffft noobs, everyone knows if ya got no licence you do a runner :shutup:

On an Intruder or a GN125 ... ??? :killingme

[oneofsix]

On an Intruder or a GN125 ... ??? :killingme

Helps if you have a box of donuts to drop

[mstriumph]

It isn't a quota it is a "performance target" :shifty:

... a KPI by any other name .... etc :yawn::yawn: (with apologies to the Bard)

[mstriumph]

Just finishing late shift.

Stopped 2 bikers during the shift, both at checkpoints. We were viewing all car drivers licences, so I asked for the riders licences as well.

One, on a Suzuki Intruder, had a learners cage licence. Doh !! Forbidden from riding until he got a licence.

The other, on a GN125, had an expired car and bike licence. Forbidden from driving until he gets a licence.

Two bikes, two strikes. And people wonder why bikers get stopped for random checks.



i wonder about many things .............

[davereid]

JThe other, on a GN125, had an expired car and bike licence. Forbidden from driving until he gets a licence.

Yes most important. By not showing up to pay the fee by the due date he was instantly an incapable driver.

Strange system really.

Ive still got a lifetime licence I bought and paid for in 1988. Strangely, even though I have honoured all its conditions, the government have not.

[FJRider]

Ive still got a lifetime licence I bought and paid for in 1988. Strangely, even though I have honoured all its conditions, the government have not.

Perhaps you just lived longer than they expected ... :innocent:

[riffer]

Ah but there's the rub. While you honoured the conditions set by the government under which the license was issued, that government no longer exists.

Every three years the bets are off.

[Ocean1]

Ah but there's the rub. While you honoured the conditions set by the government under which the license was issued, that government no longer exists.

Every three years the bets are off.

All the more reason to take demands for compliance with any new rort with a grain of salt.



As if I needed another...

[bikaholic]

Ah but there's the rub. While you honoured the conditions set by the government under which the license was issued, that government no longer exists.

Every three years the bets are off.Nope, the terms and conditions are set by order in council, which is Parliament. Faces changes, Parliament does not.

[davereid]

Nope, the terms and conditions are set by order in council, which is Parliament. Faces changes, Parliament does not.

Government lies continue for ever.....

This is a lifetime licence

This ones not an ID card

The use of the information is limited to road transport law enforcement

You are innocent until proven guilty

You have the right to remain silent

you are protected from search and seizure

The food bill does not cover seeds

[Tigadee]

If its so smart why do I get pulled over when im legal?

It's yer leathers!:laugh: