Log in

View Full Version : Motorcycle safety campaign. Yeah right.



jono750
2nd March 2014, 14:32
Apparently the police are highlighting 'motorcycle safety' this weekend.
Got stopped by patrol car in Albany today, my bike is legal and I was riding nicely. So while I'm standing there on the side of the road, flashing lights still going.
me:I ask what's the problem?
cont:Motorcycle safety campaign.
cont:Pulls out questionnaire, how often do you ride your bike daily/weekly etc.
me:Whenever I want.
cont:Looks around bike for faults. Continues with questionnaire, are your pants kevlar (jeans).
me:No response.
cont:Are you wearing gloves?
me:Wanting to say - what was I taking off my hands before removing my helmet before getting my license out to take part in this idiocy?
Instead I asked if I wasn't breaking any laws shall I just go?
cont:Sat in his car pretending to be doing shit, probably logging me as a belligerent arsehole.

I don't know what the police are trying to achieve, but if they want to do a pop quiz. It's going to go better without the drama of flashing lights at the side of the road. Unless it's part of their ongoing persecution operation.
How about contracting it out to colmar brunton?, they do fly buys.

AllanB
2nd March 2014, 14:39
A survey could easily be done via registered motorcycles - post it out, pop up a prize (new helmet/gear/years free rego etc) and the response would (I suspect) be fairly good. That would free up the po-po to pull over drivers/riders who were actually doing something wrong.

Regarding gear such as gloves and adequate footwear I have long been an advocate of this being a riding requirement - fucks me off that ACC pays for fucked up hands if you were not wearing gloves. Thus unless it is a legal requirement I see little value in the police passing comment on gloves (in your case) and the like. Do they ask women what shoes they are wearing when they pull a car over? High heels can be very dangerous to drive in.

Katman
2nd March 2014, 14:47
Regarding gear such as gloves and adequate footwear I have long been an advocate of this being a riding requirement - fucks me off that ACC pays for fucked up hands if you were not wearing gloves. Thus unless it is a legal requirement I see little value in the police passing comment on gloves (in your case) and the like. Do they ask women what shoes they are wearing when they pull a car over? High heels can be very dangerous to drive in.

I agree with you to a point but.....

I road test bikes at such a rate that the only safety gear I can be bothered grabbing is my helmet. (Although I've already got workbooks on).

Sometimes being really careful at what you're doing is enough to make up for deficiencies in safety gear.

skippa1
2nd March 2014, 14:57
Nothing gives them the right to detain you unless they suspect you of breaking a law. They certainly can't detain you to do a survey.

am I under arrest? Am I being detained as a suspect?

if not......good bye

Gremlin
2nd March 2014, 15:23
I forget the stats, but apparently common for motorcycles to be ridden on the wrong class of licence. Common enough at least, to warrant a campaign, which I believe will focus on all aspects, WOF, Rego, Class of licence correct for motorcycle etc. Get used to it, as I believe the campaign is for the whole of March.


Nothing gives them the right to detain you unless they suspect you of breaking a law. They certainly can't detain you to do a survey.

am I under arrest? Am I being detained as a suspect?

if not......good bye
Wrong, they have the power to stop anyone any time, and you are also to follow directions given by an officer. Not really going to bother debating this, as the laws are clear, feel free to make it more complicated if you like, and it's not the topic of the thread.

swbarnett
2nd March 2014, 15:31
Regarding gear such as gloves and adequate footwear I have long been an advocate of this being a riding requirement - fucks me off that ACC pays for fucked up hands if you were not wearing gloves.
The answer to this is so simple even you might be able to understand it. Let me put it in the form of a question:

Why do ACC pay for fucked riders of these two wheeled death traps?

skippa1
2nd March 2014, 15:37
Wrong, they have the power to stop anyone any time, and you are also to follow directions given by an officer. Not really going to bother debating this, as the laws are clear, feel free to make it more complicated if you like, and it's not the topic of the thread.

Stop yes, detain for a survey no. You are wrong, and it is totally related to topic. I can't be fucked debating though either, you sit on the side of the road with bacon....I will go about my lawful business

Wingnut
2nd March 2014, 15:38
I agree with you to a point but.....

I road test bikes at such a rate that the only safety gear I can be bothered grabbing is my helmet. (Although I've already got workbooks on).

Sometimes being really careful at what you're doing is enough to make up for deficiencies in safety gear.

Understood. Although it doesn't make allowance for the deficiencies of all the retarded drivers on our roads....

Katman
2nd March 2014, 15:48
Understood. Although it doesn't make allowance for the deficiencies of all the retarded drivers on our roads....

I think it does.

If you do it well enough.

Grashopper
2nd March 2014, 16:48
Apparently the police are highlighting 'motorcycle safety' this weekend.
Got stopped by patrol car in Albany today....
I'm not really seeing the problem. Answer a few questions, have a nice chat and that's it. There's surely worse things to be stopped for.

Akzle
2nd March 2014, 17:23
Wrong, they have the power to stop anyone any time, and you are also to follow directions given by an officer. Not really going to bother debating this, as the laws are clear, feel free to make it more complicated if you like, and it's not the topic of the thread.

'lawful instruction'
and here we dissolve into debating semantics.
No, you dont have to do anything that anyone else tells you ever. They have only the authority you give them.

Ftp.

Akzle
2nd March 2014, 17:25
I'm not really seeing the problem. Answer a few questions, have a nice chat and that's it. There's surely worse things to be stopped for.

you may take that attitude. Youre welcome to it.
I dont want to be stopped by anyone at any time for any reason.
unless ive somehow injured someone and am unaware of it.

AllanB
2nd March 2014, 17:27
The answer to this is so simple even you might be able to understand it. Let me put it in the form of a question:

Why do ACC pay for fucked riders of these two wheeled death traps?

The only valid answer is: because.

Because they charge us ACC on our rego
Because we think we live in the free world and we are intitled to it
Because the ACC system also pays for stupidly.


Personally I don't think it should pay for the stupid. But then we would get into a debate as to the definition of stupid - that could be bad for us all. Fall off your bike doing 120kms per - ACC states that was stupid (must have been, after all you fell off) as you knew the legal limit was 100, thus no ACC.

So we leave it alone and put up with idiots who get pissed and climb into the lion enclosure, get mauled then ACC covers it. People who mow their lawns in jandels and end up in hospital missing a few toes. Are these 'accidents'? I can stand on top of my swivel chair at work doing an impersonation of a ballerina, fall off, get hurt and ACC will cover the 'work place accident'.

We should all be grateful that the attempts to privatise ACC have failed to date - stupid NZ would be fucked - no payouts.

swbarnett
3rd March 2014, 06:09
Personally I don't think it should pay for the stupid.
This is where your whole argument collapses. Humans, by definition are stupid. It's built in to our DNA. Can you honestly say that you've never been stupid at any time in your life? Some get away with their periods of stupidity without physical injury, some don't. Who are we to judge?



And who makes the judgement as to what's stupid? To some riding a motorcycle is stupid.

Paul in NZ
3rd March 2014, 07:47
Are these 'accidents'? I can stand on top of my swivel chair at work doing an impersonation of a ballerina, fall off, get hurt and ACC will cover the 'work place accident'.


Your H&S person will definately be having a word with you because if you do that - it will cost the company money and soon, if they don't do something about it and if you keep doing it and really hurt yourself, could mean someone ends up behind bars.

Having said this... Have a quick squizz here..

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11209777

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11212617

yes - its all our fault... sigh... let the beatings begin...

yevjenko
3rd March 2014, 10:39
I'm not really seeing the problem.

Apart from detaining you on your lawful business. putting the shits up you (make you think that you might have accidentally missed a speed-limit sign, which is what i would think if the blues and twos came on behind me), you actually wanted to go somewhere on your bike... that kind of stuff

yevjenko
3rd March 2014, 10:41
you may take that attitude. Youre welcome to it.
I dont want to be stopped by anyone at any time for any reason.
unless ive somehow injured someone and am unaware of it.

Wow... I agree with Aklze on something :eek5:

uhhh... I think I need a drink and a lie down

AllanB
3rd March 2014, 17:53
Can you honestly say that you've never been stupid at any time in your life?

Shit no, done heaps of stupid things, the difference is I don't expect someone else to pay for my stupid actions if I hurt myself.

caseye
3rd March 2014, 18:10
you may take that attitude. Youre welcome to it.
I dont want to be stopped by anyone at any time for any reason.
unless ive somehow injured someone and am unaware of it.

Yep, and this gentleman is the crux of the matter.
Those who see no problem in being stopped today, will tomorrow, when they're forcibly removed from their bike, because! they took too long to stop!
This of course would only be the opinion of the uniform who stopped them, but hey he's the law and we all agree with their rules.

I sure as hell do agree with Akzle on this one.

Unless I've broken some existing law for which I can be detained, I don't want to interact with anyone in a uniform who simply wants to waste my time talking to me.
What did happen to going about my "lawful business" without being unjustly disturbed???
I'll tell you aye, some of you didn't object when firearms licence holders had to forfeit their lifetime licences and resit every ten years. No One said a fucking word!
Then when they did the same to car licence holders there was one hell of a hullabaloo! Butt hey, done it with firearms licences , only fair innit?? Too late.
Then they changed the entire relationship of ordinary NZ'ers and ACC by decreeing that different groups of people who did different jobs that were more dangerous should pay more, what happened?
Oh nothing , you know NZ'ers are a laid back bunch.
Then we get to motorcyclists called bludgers and told we have far more crashes than car drives do and should pay more, did the rest of NZ get upset and demand equal rights under ACC as it was meant to be?
Nope, they just put their heads down and ignored the problem.
Butt wait.
Despite being told they'd be next, they just shrugged their shoulders and carried on.
When rego's did go up and when ACC taxing was increased just a little bit, Nothing like they'd done to bikes, wasn't there an uproar! not fair, not the intent of ACC, not paying! Yeah Right.
Suckers.
Divided and conquered, all the way to the bank!
to borrow one of S W's by lines.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin (1706-90)

Katiepie
3rd March 2014, 18:22
I got pulled over a few weeks ago as part of a motorcycle safety campaign. Officer told me my headlight was not working (explained it wasn't why I was pulled over) - I looked down, headlight working correctly - single side on Yamaha. He said I shouldn't be riding with only one light working. I almost had a giggle and explained it was the design of the bike, one side for low beam, both sides on high beam. He said he didn't believe that was true and suggested I go and get it fixed. Sigh.

He then asked me for my license right after muttering that I will no doubt be on the wrong licence for my 600cc sports bike. I politely handed my license over, sure enough full license. He was not impressed. Then mentioned he thought I may have been girl who broke my neck. I wanted to say no, but balls up telling fibs and said yes. I then got a lecture about how he didn't think it was safe for me to be riding long distance after such an injury, putting others at risk and myself.

I was thankful to get my license back and head off again on my Wellington to Auckland trip. It was about 20 minutes of time being told all that he thought I shouldn't be doing, and that I didn't seem to know a few basics about my own bike (he at first said it was no doubt a 250).

Had a bit of a laugh - didn't give me a lot of faith in this "motorcycle safety campaign"

Crasherfromwayback
3rd March 2014, 18:39
Had a bit of a laugh - didn't give me a lot of faith in this "motorcycle safety campaign"

Prob just wanted a good perv at your arse Love.

Katiepie
3rd March 2014, 18:45
Prob just wanted a good perv at your arse Love.

If saggy butt leathers do it for ya, then good for you!

Crasherfromwayback
3rd March 2014, 18:46
If saggy butt leathers do it for ya, then good for you!

Phwoar!!!!!

Big Dave
3rd March 2014, 18:52
Writing from Queensland - youse gots nuffink.

FJRider
3rd March 2014, 18:58
Nothing gives them the right to detain you unless they suspect you of breaking a law. They certainly can't detain you to do a survey.

am I under arrest? Am I being detained as a suspect?

if not......good bye

Actually ... they CAN ...

You must stop if signaled to do so by a Police officer.

If in the course of his duties ... he requires you to answer questions (nothing in ledgislation specifying ANY particular topics) ... you must answer.

To impede an officer in the course of his duties is an offence.

You must remain stopped untill he allows you to leave. To not do so is an offence. (35 demerits and a fine)

skippa1
3rd March 2014, 19:22
Actually ... they CAN ...

You must stop if signaled to do so by a Police officer.

If in the course of his duties ... he requires you to answer questions (nothing in ledgislation specifying ANY particular topics) ... you must answer.

To impede an officer in the course of his duties is an offence.

You must remain stopped untill he allows you to leave. To not do so is an offence. (35 demerits and a fine)
Bullshit.

see section 23
they cannot detain you for a survey

http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/t/the-guidelines-on-the-new-zealand-bill-of-rights-act-1990-a-guide-to-the-rights-and-freedoms-in-the-bill-of-rights-act-for-the-public-sector/section-23-rights-of-persons-arrested-or-detained

An officer can stop any car at any time to check for warrant, registration etc. You and your passengers have the right to remain silent, but must give your names, dates of birth, addresses and the registered owner of the car. The driver can be detained for up to 15 minutes to establish identity.


An officer can search your car if


you agree, or
they have reasonable grounds to believe there are drugs in the car and invoke the Misuse of Drugs Act s18, or
they have a search warrant, or
they arrest you and you’re with your vehicle at the time, or
under the Crimes Act police can search any car and its occupants for stolen property.

prove me wrong

FJRider
3rd March 2014, 19:46
Bullshit.



I think you may find legislation has changed a bit since 1990 ...

Akzle
3rd March 2014, 19:51
well. They did just ram through the Schutz Staffel/Search & Surveilance Act.

But acts are for actors. Fuck that shit. I direct my own show.

nzspokes
3rd March 2014, 19:53
putting others at risk and myself.



I know this well. I had may doctors, nurses etc say I shouldnt be riding when I was in hospital seeing my girl after her crash. One nurse got on my tits so I asked her in the middle of her spiel what had happened to the lady in the next bed. Nurse said a car crash. Then I asked her if she had told the lady not to go in cars again. She shut up and fucked off.

skippa1
3rd March 2014, 19:58
I think you may find legislation has changed a bit since 1990 ...

i think you might find it disapointing that it was introduced in 1990, minor review in 1993 amended 2001(not to the applicable parts being discussed)reprinted in 2013 and still stands unmolested today.

Akzle
3rd March 2014, 20:12
She shut up and fucked off.

:not::not::not: .:laugh:

Ulsterkiwi
3rd March 2014, 20:19
so is an actual campaign or just the reason used to explain people being pulled over? If its a campaign why is there no publicity about it? Not much of a campaign if no one is told. Its a bit like having a general election and not bothering to announce the date to the public. Had a similar discussion elsewhere about a "crackdown" on lane splitting. No media announcement, no communication with motorcycle groups, just a policeman at the side of the road telling the guy getting the ticket. Why not tell us? If there is nothing to tell why bullshit? Is the guy any less ticketed?
The gentleman who pulled over Katiepie, what exactly has his time and energy contributed to the good of the community other than provide evidence of a cringeworthy ignorance of that which he was supposed to be making safer......?
I am genuinely interested to hear any comments from serving officers who frequent the board.
The police do not have an easy job but surely taking this kind of tack is not likely to win the hearts and minds of the section of the community they are trying to assist?

FJRider
3rd March 2014, 20:20
i think you might find it disapointing that it was introduced in 1990, minor review in 1993 amended 2001(not to the applicable parts being discussed)reprinted in 2013 and still stands unmolested today.

Not entirely unmolested ...

Demerit points for alcohol and enforcement officer related offences


Failing to stop on request or signal of an enforcement officer, or on being followed by motor vehicle displaying flashing blue, or blue and red, lights or sounding a siren

35

Failing to remain stopped for an enforcement officer

35

Driving or attempting to drive when forbidden by an enforcement officer

35

Failing or refusing to accompany an enforcement officer when so required

50

skippa1
3rd March 2014, 20:24
Not entirely unmolested ...

Demerit points for alcohol and enforcement officer related offences


Failing to stop on request or signal of an enforcement officer, or on being followed by motor vehicle displaying flashing blue, or blue and red, lights or sounding a siren

35

Failing to remain stopped for an enforcement officer

35

Driving or attempting to drive when forbidden by an enforcement officer

35

Failing or refusing to accompany an enforcement officer when so required

50
Got ya google going aye......(I did say there were amendments too)
still can't detain for a survey

anyway.......as said way back, not going to debate it. You sit on the side of the road answering survey questions like an egg, perfect accompaniment for bacon

FJRider
3rd March 2014, 20:42
Got ya google going aye......(I did say there were amendments too)
still can't detain for a survey

anyway.......as said way back, not going to debate it. You sit on the side of the road answering survey questions like an egg, perfect accompaniment for bacon

They can stop you at random ... for NO reason at all .. NOW .. !!

And with your license in their hot little hand ... and are you then going to fuck off from them .. ???

"Safety" check or any other check (whats in a name ... eh). They want you to stop you ... they can and will.

Don't want to answer .. Don't. .. "I do not wish to take part in your survey" is all you need to say. Followed by "Can I go now"

DONE ... and you do if they say yes.


Too simple for you ... ???

newbie2012
3rd March 2014, 20:42
Wow... I agree with Aklze on something :eek5:

uhhh... I think I need a drink and a lie down

Classic. Alarming. Bloody funny reaction :-)


Anyway, it looks like the whole death by a thousand paper cuts angle here. Small checks and changes will mount up over time. I agree that if anyone is abiding by the laws then they should not be pulled over. If you're riding like a fool, then fair call (or 'fair cop', if you like bad puns).

Figure the police have been given a task to 'pull over and educate' by checklist as part of their monthly jobs. Shame, as it doesn't help their image, not sure that many of them would be too happy either.

I'm firmly on the 'stop pulling over riders who are obeying the law' side of the fence.

PS NZspokes - is your wife back in the saddle now ?

haydes55
3rd March 2014, 20:48
Take one for the team. Every minute you're holding the officer up on the side of the road is another minute his laser gun is out of action. Talk about safety, kittens and prostate cancer if you have the time. I'd appreciate it.

Berries
3rd March 2014, 22:07
They can stop you at random ... for NO reason at all .. NOW .. !!
The bold is out now. You have been told!

!


!


!???!!??!!?:yes:

skippa1
4th March 2014, 05:00
Too simple for you ... ???
You want to get your reading comprehension tested....you obviously can't understand what I have been saying......"can't detain you for"....... Ahhh.....forget it

yes you are

swbarnett
4th March 2014, 06:55
Shit no, done heaps of stupid things, the difference is I don't expect someone else to pay for my stupid actions if I hurt myself.
Then you clearly don't understand the philosophy behind ACC.

yevjenko
4th March 2014, 09:11
Take one for the team. Every minute you're holding the officer up on the side of the road is another minute his laser gun is out of action. Talk about safety, kittens and prostate cancer if you have the time. I'd appreciate it.

mwah hah hah hah :lol:

yevjenko
4th March 2014, 09:13
And with your license in their hot little hand ... and are you then going to fuck off from them .. ???

It was my impression that they had to send the licence back to you if they don't return it after the 15 minutes.

RUSS
4th March 2014, 09:51
Nothing gives them the right to detain you unless they suspect you of breaking a law. They certainly can't detain you to do a survey.

am I under arrest? Am I being detained as a suspect?

if not......good bye

You should read Section 113 and 114 of the Land Transport Act 1998. There you will find that Police can stop you to check you have a drivers license, inspect your vehicle and the such. No need to suspect you at all.

If you say "Bye bye" and ride off you will find out about Section 116 where you get arrested for failure to remain stopped.

yevjenko
4th March 2014, 11:14
If you say "Bye bye" and ride off you will find out about Section 116 where you get arrested for failure to remain stopped.

Section 114, subsection 5 "An enforcement officer may require a driver to remain stopped on a road for as long as is reasonably necessary to enable the officer to establish the identity of the driver, but not for longer than 15 minutes if the requirement to remain stopped is made under this subsection only."

Subsection 3 also states for as long as is reasonable. At this point you enter the "man on the Clapham Omnibus" test of reasonable (wow I actually do remember some of my law lectures :confused: )

Section 116 relates to s115 (being safety of the vehicle or noise produced by the exhaust!) and s113 (being provision of rider identity; inspect, test and examine the brakes or any other part of the vehicle [therefore implying suspicion of unroadworthiness]; inspect Wof/Rego labels and verify that the driver is licensed to operate the vehicle.

tldr: if you give them enough time to verify you are who you say you are, you're free to go. - note IANAL

yevjenko
4th March 2014, 11:17
I also note in the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2011 that radar jammers are now illegal. Didn't realise that before.

Akzle
4th March 2014, 15:14
I also note in the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2011 that radar jammers are now illegal. Didn't realise that before.

radar jammers have been illegal for a long time. They used to butsecks you with the broadcasting act. Or some shit.

yevjenko
4th March 2014, 15:16
radar jammers have been illegal for a long time. They used to butsecks you with the broadcasting act. Or some shit.

They used to do that for us in the UK with standard radar detectors. They're still illegal over there, but now have their own enshrinement in law

FJRider
4th March 2014, 15:40
It was my impression that they had to send the licence back to you if they don't return it after the 15 minutes.

Where did you get the impression they had to let you go after 15 minutes .. ?? !5 minutes is a general guideline only. If it takes longer to carry out due process of his duties with you ... your bad luck.

Leave before he allows you to .... he could send it back with your ticket ... (with notification of the fine and the 35 Demerits)

yevjenko
4th March 2014, 15:43
Where did you get the impression they had to let you go after 15 minutes .. ??

Land Transport Act 1998 Section 114 - on the assumption that no other offences have been committed

otherwise the detainment period is only listed as "a reasonable amount of time" which is up to interpretation

FJRider
4th March 2014, 16:09
Land Transport Act 1998 Section 114 - on the assumption that no other offences have been committed

otherwise the detainment period is only listed as "a reasonable amount of time" which is up to interpretation

I doubt the Cops "Assume" you have committed no (other ??) offence when they stop you ... for whatever reason they give you at the time. It may take more than 15 minutes to give your bike a "Safety check" ... and your attitude at the time will affect how hard they look .. :Oops:

Reality is ... they don't need a reason to stop you anymore. Totally random stops are now legal ... :corn:

Reasonable Time ... is usually up to the "interpretation" of the cop ... :pinch:

Quote the Land Transport Act to patrol officers ... that really impresses them ... <_<

FJRider
4th March 2014, 16:44
Land Transport Act 1998 Section 114 - on the assumption that no other offences have been committed

otherwise the detainment period is only listed as "a reasonable amount of time" which is up to interpretation

As of 01 November, 2013 ...

(5) An enforcement officer may require a driver to remain stopped on a road for as long as is reasonably necessary to enable the officer to establish the identity of the driver, but not for longer than 15 minutes if the requirement to remain stopped is made under this subsection only.

In other words ... to establish identity only. And as I recall ... if your identity is not established (to the officers satisfaction)... you can be arrested and held is custody until your identity is ascertained.

Should they hold you longer than the 15 minutes (to establish identity) ... you still cannot just up and leave. (that is an offense) But you can make an official complaint. In writing of course.

skippa1
4th March 2014, 17:01
You should read Section 113 and 114 of the Land Transport Act 1998. There you will find that Police can stop you to check you have a drivers license, inspect your vehicle and the such. No need to suspect you at all.

If you say "Bye bye" and ride off you will find out about Section 116 where you get arrested for failure to remain stopped.
You should just learn to read what people write

FJRider
4th March 2014, 18:24
Nothing gives them the right to detain you unless they suspect you of breaking a law. They certainly can't detain you to do a survey.

am I under arrest? Am I being detained as a suspect?

if not......good bye

As Gremlin A
and I have already said ... yes they can.

Section 114 that I recall you quoting .... read 3 paragraph (b)
h


(2 A) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), the driver of a vehicle that is stopped by an enforcement officer under this Act must remain stopped for as long as is reasonably necessary for the enforcement officer to complete the exercise of any powers conferred, or duties imposed, on an enforcement officer by this Act.

(3) An enforcement officer may require the driver of a vehicle that is stopped under this Act to—

(a) remain stopped for as long as is reasonably necessary for an enforcement officer to obtain the particulars referred to in paragraph (b), or to complete the exercise of any other power conferred on an enforcement officer by this Act; and

(b) on demand by an enforcement officer,—

(i) give his or her full name, full address, date of birth, occupation, and telephone number, or such of those particulars as the enforcement officer may specify; and

(ii) state whether or not he or she is the owner of the vehicle; and

pritch
4th March 2014, 18:32
radar jammers have been illegal for a long time. They used to butsecks you with the broadcasting act. Or some shit.

Correct. The charge would be something along the lines of operating an unlicenced transmitter. The detector is only a receiver. It doesn't just detect Police radars it does a real good job of detecting ships while driving along the waterfront...

skippa1
4th March 2014, 18:58
As Gremlin A
and I have already said ... yes they can

Fuck me......sorry, that puts it in a different light, you must be right then:blink:
touching that you care so much that I might get arrested.......shame you don't understand your own human rights.....you are h.....ah forget it

yevjenko
4th March 2014, 19:05
The definition of reasonable in English law (which is what we have here, there being two legal systems, French or English) is what the common person would find reasonable (in British law the term is 'a man on the Clapham omnibus'). If you have presented your licence and answered the 'who, where, what do you do', that is sufficient proof of identity. that point you can ask the officer if he has any other business with you and be legally within your rights to leave. Bear in mind that the op was about stops due to a safety campaign

I always remain polite to police, irrelevant of whether they are one of the good ones, or one of the pricks.

sent from my phone (so scuze auto correct typos)

FJRider
4th March 2014, 19:15
.....shame you don't understand your own human rights.....

You probably mean Legal rights ... ask your mother to explain the difference.

A human right is being allowed to breathe/eat etc... rights you seem to abuse ... and I feel wasted ... on you ...

Kickaha
4th March 2014, 19:22
Reality is ... they don't need a reason to stop you anymore. Totally random stops are now legal ... :corn:
They stopped me about 2.30pm just before the Lindis river on Sunday just gone, doing random breath tests :lol:

Did a WOF and rego check as well which made me pretty fucking glad I'd done the rego online the day before, thought I'd be safe for a while after so made sure I exceeded the speed limit through to Omarama to make up for the time they wasted

FJRider
4th March 2014, 19:37
They stopped me about 2.30pm just before the Lindis river on Sunday just gone, doing random breath tests :lol:

Did a WOF and rego check as well which made me pretty fucking glad I'd done the rego online the day before, thought I'd be safe for a while after so made sure I exceeded the speed limit through to Omarama to make up for the time they wasted

Their favorite spot to park is near the bottom of Longslip gully ... just before where the road sweeps right to follow the river out to Omarama. It is well policed though ... and I wouldn't claim safe ... just lucky.

To sit on 100 km/hr ALL the way through would be quite a feat. It is a good way to kill an hour or so ... :laugh:

skippa1
4th March 2014, 19:42
You probably mean Legal rights ... ask your mother to explain the difference.

A human right is being allowed to breathe/eat etc... rights you seem to abuse ... and I feel wasted ... on you ...
The human rights act
read it





again....nice to know you care

yevjenko
4th March 2014, 19:51
The human rights act 1993? which of 160 odd sections are you referring to? interestingly thesection on repeals had been repealed :-)

(Edited: Ah my bad. Misread your post)

sent from my phone (so scuze auto correct typos)

FJRider
4th March 2014, 20:04
The human rights act
read it





again....nice to know you care

If it's in Legislation ... it is legal rights ... any particular section ...???


And ..

Sorry ... wrong AGAIN ... I don't care ... :killingme



You've got so much wrong it's almost funny.

Try again ....

skippa1
4th March 2014, 20:12
. I don't care ... ...
I think it might, It's clearly eating you up and you're trying to mask it with laughter emoticons. Let it go man......:wavey:

Akzle
5th March 2014, 01:02
The definition of reasonable in English law (which is what we have here, there being two legal systems, French or English)

oh dear sunshine. Bit to learn there.
Theres fuken ten kinds of law.
What enzud suffers is based on BRITISH ADMIRALTY REGULATORY LAW and the associated judiciary which is an adversarial system.

What i believe you mean by 'french' is an investigative/inquisitorial (no fault ><) JUDICIARY system?
they still, afaik, have statute (regulatory law)
Now. Go do some homework. Common law is not statute.

Akzle
5th March 2014, 01:08
The human rights act 1993? which of 160 odd sections are you referring to? interestingly thesection on repeals had been repealed :-)

(Edited: Ah my bad. Misread your post)

sent from my phone (so scuze auto correct typos)

try the bill of rights (act) or the jewnited nations charter of human rights. Or the ratified 1293 magna carta (in force via the imperial laws application act)

'freedom to travel'
'freedom of NON association' - what i like to call, 'tits or gtfo'
and aint no bobby given me tits.

RUSS
5th March 2014, 11:34
Section 116 relates to s115 (being safety of the vehicle or noise produced by the exhaust!) and s113 (being provision of rider identity; inspect, test and examine the brakes or any other part of the vehicle [therefore implying suspicion of unroadworthiness]; inspect Wof/Rego labels and verify that the driver is licensed to operate the vehicle.

116(1) LTA is the power of arrest. It's pretty clear. I think you may be skim reading. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1998/0110/latest/DLM435107.html

TheDemonLord
5th March 2014, 11:51
Shit just got Real!

Personally - I'd be pretty pissed if I was stopped for a survey, - my after hours hourly rate would be a tear to many an eye, and 15 minutes of Me after 5 pm gets quite expensive

GrayWolf
6th March 2014, 04:47
I agree with you to a point but.....

I road test bikes at such a rate that the only safety gear I can be bothered grabbing is my helmet. (Although I've already got workbooks on).

Sometimes being really careful at what you're doing is enough to make up for deficiencies in safety gear.

For the man who is an what can only be described as 'aggressive' campaigner on safety, riding skills etc, You REALLY just shot yourself in the foot with that post.

Kickaha
6th March 2014, 05:36
For the man who is an what can only be described as 'aggressive' campaigner on safety, riding skills etc, You REALLY just shot yourself in the foot with that post.

His last sentence pretty much covers it

rastuscat
6th March 2014, 11:56
Actually ... they CAN ...

You must stop if signaled to do so by a Police officer.

If in the course of his duties ... he requires you to answer questions (nothing in ledgislation specifying ANY particular topics) ... you must answer.

To impede an officer in the course of his duties is an offence.

You must remain stopped untill he allows you to leave. To not do so is an offence. (35 demerits and a fine)


Even I have to disagree on that one, sorry.

There's a limit to what you have to say, though why you'd enforce it is beyond me.

You have to supply name and address, and "other details as to identity". You also have to tell if you own the vehicle, and if you don't, who does. The questions about the gear are purely discretionary.

I believe in these sort of campaigns, not least because, anecdotally, about 3 in 10 of the riders we stop don't have the correct licence for the bike they are on. It's not possible to tell if the rider has a licence without first identifying who the rider is, requiring a stop for that to happen.

Still, it doesn't happen that often.

Katman
6th March 2014, 12:12
For the man who is an what can only be described as 'aggressive' campaigner on safety, riding skills etc, You REALLY just shot yourself in the foot with that post.

I have never once jumped on the ATGATT bandwagon.

Perhaps you should learn to read.

Ulsterkiwi
6th March 2014, 12:41
I believe in these sort of campaigns, not least because, anecdotally, about 3 in 10 of the riders we stop don't have the correct licence for the bike they are on. It's not possible to tell if the rider has a licence without first identifying who the rider is, requiring a stop for that to happen.

Still, it doesn't happen that often.

I am glad to see you joining this discussion.
So what is the definition of a campaign? The lowering of the discretionary speed limit tolerance over the summer period was recognisable as a campaign, lots of publicity and attention and some kind of measurable outcome. (whether you agree with the validity of the measure or not, is not the question here)

Is this "campaign" confined to a particular policing area? Why? Why has there not been the same publicity around the campaign as say the speed limit tolerance? What is the aim? What objectives have been set so that the aim is reached? How is that measured? How will the public be made aware of this? If education is intended why do people have to be pulled over to do so? Have any other options been considered?

Just want to make a couple of things clear. I ride a class of bike permissible with my class of licence and I wear ATGATT so am not feeling threatened! I realise you are not the person who sets policy but you are uniquely placed to give us an insight as to how such policy is decided and implemented. I am not interested in flaming the police. I just want to understand how these things work.

Akzle
6th March 2014, 13:37
Even I have to disagree on that one, sorry.

There's a limit to what you have to say, though why you'd enforce it is beyond me.

You have to supply name and address, and "other details as to identity". You also have to tell if you own the vehicle, and if you don't, who does. The questions about the gear are purely discretionary.

I believe in these sort of campaigns, not least because, anecdotally, about 3 in 10 of the riders we stop don't have the correct licence for the bike they are on. It's not possible to tell if the rider has a licence without first identifying who the rider is, requiring a stop for that to happen.

Still, it doesn't happen that often.

i think we should extract your dna, and everyone else on the force have it forcibly injected.
If its compatible, then we'll be left with a better quality enforcement division.
If not, theyll probably start boiling, from the inside out as it forms some kind of corrosive acid inside them....

But still, ftp. Is it your anecdotal experience that a grade of license corresponds proportianally to the intelligence or ability demonstrated by the driving?

scumdog
6th March 2014, 14:52
Great, ANOTHER thread for/by whinging paranoid biker types, as if we need another one of those threads....<_<

rastuscat
6th March 2014, 16:00
i think we should extract your dna, and everyone else on the force have it forcibly injected.
If its compatible, then we'll be left with a better quality enforcement division.
If not, theyll probably start boiling, from the inside out as it forms some kind of corrosive acid inside them....

But still, ftp. Is it your anecdotal experience that a grade of license corresponds proportianally to the intelligence or ability demonstrated by the driving?

No. But if we started enforcing intelligence the roads would be a lot less frequented down your way.....

I entirely agree that holding a license is bugger all indication of driving ability. It's no different to a Warrant of Fitness. Great for the test from which it arose, but bugger all indication of compliance after that.

rastuscat
6th March 2014, 16:08
I am glad to see you joining this discussion.
So what is the definition of a campaign? The lowering of the discretionary speed limit tolerance over the summer period was recognisable as a campaign, lots of publicity and attention and some kind of measurable outcome. (whether you agree with the validity of the measure or not, is not the question here)

Is this "campaign" confined to a particular policing area? Why? Why has there not been the same publicity around the campaign as say the speed limit tolerance? What is the aim? What objectives have been set so that the aim is reached? How is that measured? How will the public be made aware of this? If education is intended why do people have to be pulled over to do so? Have any other options been considered?

Just want to make a couple of things clear. I ride a class of bike permissible with my class of licence and I wear ATGATT so am not feeling threatened! I realise you are not the person who sets policy but you are uniquely placed to give us an insight as to how such policy is decided and implemented. I am not interested in flaming the police. I just want to understand how these things work.

Popos around the country are rolling their collective eyes at the disproportionate rate of biker deaths, and wondering what to do about it.

Various districts come up with different responses. And some don't do much at all. That makes the others stand out.

I'm sure that a national response will be formulated.

Traditionally the response to motorcycle deaths is to hammer the shit out of bikers. This has led to an antagonistic relationship between Police and some bikers.

Some bikers never run foul of Police, some do frequently.

I had a look at a different response in the last couple of years, trying to engage with motorcyclists, have them take ownership of the issues, and to promote solutions that bikers can implement themselves.

The response has been underwhelming. I had one bloke recently do one of the training courses in order to get off a ticket he had received. 2 weeks later I get a complaint about a guy using a cycle lave as a passing lane, and it turns out to be the same bloke.

Education is sometimes the answer, but some days enforcement feels like the necessary response. Fecking frustrating when riders put themselves in dangerous situations.

And nobody...........NOBODY..........has tempted me with donuts in the last 2 years.

WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE !!!!!!!!

Akzle
6th March 2014, 16:15
No. But if we started enforcing intelligence the roads would be a lot less frequented down your way.....


up* my way. My roads are infrequented. Thats why i like them.

jasonu
6th March 2014, 16:18
Sometimes being really careful at what you're doing is enough to make up for deficiencies in safety gear.

Until some dickwad unexpectedly pulls out of a driveway and totally flattens you.

Akzle
6th March 2014, 16:57
Popos around the country are rolling their collective eyes at the disproportionate rate of biker deaths, and wondering what to do about it.

had a look at a different response in the last couple of years, trying to engage with motorcyclists, have them take ownership of the issues, and to promote solutions that bikers can implement themselves.

NOBODY..........has tempted me with donuts in the last 2 years.


i would never offer you donuts.
Infact, when we meet, likely the first thing i say will be 'piss off'
who pinned the badge on your sash, whereby you feel the need to save people from themselves??

You cant legislate against accidents (stupidity or not) and you cant legislate against intent, meaning basically everything you do serves no purpose.

So fuck off already.
It isnt that we have been antagonised by you enforcing roading policy, but rather the entire lack of stopping any kind of actual crime.(im also firmly of the belief that police haven't stopped one road fatality yet)

Ulsterkiwi
6th March 2014, 17:03
Popos around the country are rolling their collective eyes at the disproportionate rate of biker deaths, and wondering what to do about it.

Various districts come up with different responses. And some don't do much at all. That makes the others stand out.

I'm sure that a national response will be formulated.

Traditionally the response to motorcycle deaths is to hammer the shit out of bikers. This has led to an antagonistic relationship between Police and some bikers.

Some bikers never run foul of Police, some do frequently.

I had a look at a different response in the last couple of years, trying to engage with motorcyclists, have them take ownership of the issues, and to promote solutions that bikers can implement themselves.

The response has been underwhelming. I had one bloke recently do one of the training courses in order to get off a ticket he had received. 2 weeks later I get a complaint about a guy using a cycle lave as a passing lane, and it turns out to be the same bloke.

Education is sometimes the answer, but some days enforcement feels like the necessary response. Fecking frustrating when riders put themselves in dangerous situations.

And nobody...........NOBODY..........has tempted me with donuts in the last 2 years.

WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE !!!!!!!!

I guess in part this is a case of damned if you do and screwed in the ass if you dont. I do understand that its a difficult one for the police and any solution requires every road user to take responsibility for their part. Note I said EVERY road user, not just those on bikes. Its a real pity that the press attention recently has been bike bashing with little by way of balancing the story and explaining to other road users they need to change things as well and how.

I admire your confidence in a national plan being formulated, I think my questions reflect what appears to be a distinct lack of and the need for a completely fresh look at a national overall strategy for improving road safety. This should encapsulate every group of road users not target those in the headlines at this time. Surely we aren't advocating populist policing? :gob:

An interesting conversation with my wife (who is naturally biker aware and sympathetic) on the one hand she was commenting on the knobs with a deathwish who lane split at 80kmh going downhill on the Ngauranga Gorge part of SH1, "both sides at the same time like some kind of two wheeled tag team" as she put it and when she heard about the "campaign" described by the OP she commented it was "daft to piss everyone off". Two very different perspectives and thats just one person.

So what about engagement? Last weekend Southwards Museum in Pram had a big open day. hundreds and hundreds of people there. I wasn't at it but drove past a few times, I didnt see a police community relations or highway patrol unit out connecting with what are clearly road users. No handing out of leaflets or presence to take advantage of the gathering.
Instead what I experienced was manovreing and road skills from a number of car drivers that would make my two cats look like Senna and Prost. Thats just to be expected what really pissed me off was two idiots who tried to pull out in front of me in the middle of Pram while experiencing sustained loss of traction and fishtailing their way along the Kapiti Road. Neither wearing seat belts and the second guy had a child in a car child seat in the front of the vehicle with him and what looked like the rest of the family in the back! Where was popo then? (Rhetorical question, I know you can't answer that one)

I understand, knobs will be knobs but they will be regardless of what you do. I think getting people onboard is more effective if they dont perceive themselves to be targeted. I have no issue with the police and would usually pass the attitude test cos I think your job is hard enough without me being a prick, but flashing lights and being pulled over at the side of the road to be given a lecture because I happen to be there would rapidly change that.

Katman
6th March 2014, 17:38
Until some dickwad unexpectedly pulls out of a driveway and totally flattens you.

If you ride around with your eyes shut you deserve to be flattened.

FJRider
6th March 2014, 17:52
Great, ANOTHER thread for/by whinging paranoid biker types, as if we need another one of those threads....<_<

It strikes me as odd that a few object to answering the questions for the survey. If ACC asked for the survey to be made (in conjunction with LTSA) and will be notified with the results of said survey ... maybe .. it is in our own interests to answer the questions. If our bikes/license are in order .. the only thing we lose is 15 (??) minutes of our time. The results may indicate ... that the legally licensed motorcyclists are not the bane of ACC ..!!

A large portion of "Motorcycle" accidents are NOT on the open road ... BUT ... the licensed Motorcyclists are made to carry the kitty by the Levies imposed in Registration costs.

Maybe ... if we made/showed we were making the effort to be safe ... with the Police asking the questions ... a favorable result ... should result. If WE are all doing it right ... of course.

Perhaps ... the whinging paranoid biker types .... aren't ...

And ... I find it difficult to believe that being asked such questions in a survey by Police ... during a legal stop ... is infringing on ANY human rights issues.

I am curious though ... as to who instigated the "Safety Survey" in the first instance anyway ..

And .. as a side note .. I don't know of anybody in (or near) Paradise being asked to do the survey during a "Stop" by Police. No such reports by any (I've heard of) in the South Island either ...

Berg
6th March 2014, 17:52
Personally I haven't seen or heard anything about this here in Wgtn but what I did notice while traveling round the Waikato was the abundance of signs targeted at bikers. You know, the road is not a racetrack, don't get in drivers blind spots yadda yadda yadda. What I DIDN'T see were the signs saying "oi, drivers, take a second bloody look for bikes" etc.
It would seem we bikers are going to be under a bit of pressure for a while especially in the "killing zone" also known as Waikato especially after the last months mishaps which cost a few lives and injured several others.
I spoke with several riders while on my 20 day working trip none of which received a ticket or lecture from me. Most were actually bloody pleasant and just happy to have a yack and also happy to find some of us cops also ride bikes and also get frustrated with the way bikers are often picked on.
As for the gear survey, shit, if they want to ask sensible questions I have no problem with that at all. OK, even I get a bit annoyed when somebody who knows nothing about what they are policing asks dumb questions but I also temper that with the knowlage that making that roadside interaction can and often does find stolen bikes (and we here all loath scum sucking bike stealers) and also often finds unlicenced riders who very frequently cost us in ACC statistics which effect us all.
Just my one cent

Ulsterkiwi
6th March 2014, 18:07
I would be happy to answer questions, its how they are asked! If there is a publicised campaign aiming to reduce the toll on the roads then no problem. The way the OP described things does not strike me as the ideal way to do it. If you want to fix things then the most effective way is to get everyone on board. What was described doesnt seem to me to be the best way to do that.

Perhaps get the motorcycle cops involved, establish common ground or at least get officers who know what they are talking about to do the asking. Involve groups like Ulysses and BRONZ and local clubs. Go to community events. Its not going to generate revenue and will take longer but I do think it would be more effective.

FJRider
6th March 2014, 18:22
Traditionally the response to motorcycle deaths is to hammer the shit out of bikers. This has led to an antagonistic relationship between Police and some bikers.

It's a love/hate relationship ... motorcyclists love to hate Police. Don't take it personally ...


Some bikers never run foul of Police, some do frequently.

I had a look at a different response in the last couple of years, trying to engage with motorcyclists, have them take ownership of the issues, and to promote solutions that bikers can implement themselves.

The response has been underwhelming. I had one bloke recently do one of the training courses in order to get off a ticket he had received. 2 weeks later I get a complaint about a guy using a cycle lave as a passing lane, and it turns out to be the same bloke.

If a Motorcycle safety course is cheaper than the "Ticket" ... your IQ level needs not be that high to make the choice. $$$$ in our pockets are a major influence in such decision making ... and such safety courses don't encourage total compliance in Land Traffic Act compliance. To assume they would is comical ...


Education is sometimes the answer, but some days enforcement feels like the necessary response. Fecking frustrating when riders put themselves in dangerous situations.

It won't happen to ME ... And I've done it heaps of times with no problems ... I'm a good rider ...

End of the day ... We know the rules. You know ... and DO your job. I get the impression that you are more than fair in your responses during a stop. Like it or not by some ... that is all we expect. On some stops I have received both better and worse results.

Such is life ...


And nobody...........NOBODY..........has tempted me with donuts in the last 2 years.

WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE !!!!!!!!

Move down to Paradise .... we have Donuts ...

Kickaha
6th March 2014, 18:30
And nobody...........NOBODY..........has tempted me with donuts in the last 2 years.

WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE !!!!!!!!
You know where I live, call around some time and I will go buy you some




A large portion of "Motorcycle" accidents are NOT on the open road ... BUT ... the licensed Motorcyclists are made to carry the kitty by the Levies imposed in Registration costs.

Are you sure about that?, It's a line often trotted out but I didn't think anyone had been able to show that was the case

FJRider
6th March 2014, 19:00
Are you sure about that?, It's a line often trotted out but I didn't think anyone had been able to show that was the case

I lived with a Lady that worked for ACC .. she showed me THEIR stats on "Motorcycle" accidents ...

Four wheelers, Trail bikes, trials, Motocross (lots getting hurt there) ... ALL off the highways ... ALL count as Motorcycle injury's. ALL UNREGISTERED. And require NO registration. Even accidents on the Highway that INVOLVE motorcycles are seen as motorcycle accidents. REGARDLESS of fault at the time.

ACC is no fault accident compensation ... but feel free to demand money from only a portion of the accused. Which is actually only where they CAN demand it from ..

How you get injured is not important to get compensation .. but being motorcyclists .. we are seen as a bigger risk ... so we pay more, does that seem fair to you .. ??

Katman
6th March 2014, 19:15
I lived with a Lady that worked for ACC .. she showed me THEIR stats on "Motorcycle" accidents ...

Four wheelers, Trail bikes, trials, Motocross (lots getting hurt there) ... ALL off the highways ... ALL count as Motorcycle injury's. ALL UNREGISTERED. And require NO registration.

Are they the same statistics that the police and NZTA use?

swbarnett
6th March 2014, 19:20
... any solution requires every road user to take responsibility for their part.
The ONLY solution that has any chance of working is for you to take care of yourself and stop worrying about the fact that a small proportion of the driving public don't do things in a way that you consider "safe". Afterall, the majority of motorcycle accidents don't involve any other vehicles. How is educating "other" drivers going to help that?

Akzle
6th March 2014, 19:31
The ONLY solution that has any chance of working is for you to take care of yourself and stop worrying about the fact that a small proportion of the driving public don't do things in a way that you consider "safe". Afterall, the majority of motorcycle accidents don't involve any other vehicles. How is educating "other" drivers going to help that?

youre right of course. Motorcycling is obviously far too dangerous for anyone. It should be illegal.

Katman
6th March 2014, 19:36
Motorcycling is obviously far too dangerous for anyone. It should be illegal.

Maybe just for the idiots.

FJRider
6th March 2014, 19:42
Are they the same statistics that the police and NZTA use?

Motorcycle accidents occur On Road Race circuits, Motocross tracks, Dirt tracks, farms .. 10 acre lifestyle blocks .. some even occur on the road. ALL motorcycle accidents ...

Have you any reason to doubt how they are appearing in the statistics ... ???

ACC policy at the time was not to breakdown stats into the various sections of each.

I wonder why ... ???

FJRider
6th March 2014, 19:46
Maybe just for the idiots.

Many a true word has been said in jest ...

skippa1
6th March 2014, 19:47
Actually ... they CAN ...

You must stop if signaled to do so by a Police officer.

If in the course of his duties ... he requires you to answer questions (nothing in ledgislation specifying ANY particular topics) ... you must answer.

To impede an officer in the course of his duties is an offence.

You must remain stopped untill he allows you to leave. To not do so is an offence. (35 demerits and a fine)
You sure? Like you seem soooooo sure!

Even I have to disagree on that one, sorry.

There's a limit to what you have to say, though why you'd enforce it is beyond me.

You have to supply name and address, and "other details as to identity". You also have to tell if you own the vehicle, and if you don't, who does. The questions about the gear are purely discretionary.

I believe in these sort of campaigns, not least because, anecdotally, about 3 in 10 of the riders we stop don't have the correct licence for the bike they are on. It's not possible to tell if the rider has a licence without first identifying who the rider is, requiring a stop for that to happen.

Still, it doesn't happen that often.
What was that FJ?????was that a " sorry.....I got it wrong"???????

Katman
6th March 2014, 19:48
Motorcycle accidents occur On Road Race circuits, Motocross tracks, Dirt tracks, farms .. 10 acre lifestyle blocks .. some even occur on the road. ALL motorcycle accidents ...


How many of them came to the attention of the police - and therefore NZTA?

AllanB
6th March 2014, 19:51
Being an official adult (49) and a motorcyclist since I was 16, I'd propose that part of the appeal of motorcycling is a degree of rebellion. This may be manifested in something as simple as riding at 110 instead of 100 or dependant on the individuals personal circumstances (money, family, brain power ...) something far more anti-social.

If any aspect of the above is slightly true then one could also presume the motorcyclist would have a natural (possibly subconscious) tendency to resent or resist education or advice from the law. After all you are rebelling against society and what great power represents society's enforced restrictions than the police.

PS - personally despite my own 'rebellion' I am always polite to the popo when they stop me for a chat - after all they are just doing their job and to be fair many times that is a very very difficult job.

Scuba_Steve
6th March 2014, 19:51
youre right of course. Motorcycling is obviously far too dangerous for anyone. It should be illegal.

They're working on it, give them time! Bureaucracy isn't a fast mover; After all "speed" is dangerous

Ulsterkiwi
6th March 2014, 19:57
The ONLY solution that has any chance of working is for you to take care of yourself and stop worrying about the fact that a small proportion of the driving public don't do things in a way that you consider "safe". Afterall, the majority of motorcycle accidents don't involve any other vehicles. How is educating "other" drivers going to help that?

Its a pity you have quoted me out of context, this must account for your being confused as to my meaning.
Of course incidents involving only motorcycles will not be directly helped with that.

If you actually read my comments and the entire thread you will see the discussion that had developed with Ratuscat was concerning the police being frustrated with high rates of serious incidents recently. A potential solution was to come down hard on motorcyclists but of course the spate of recent serious incidents have a significant proportion of other vehicles/road users being involved. The general issue being discussed was that of road safety, last I checked motorcycles are not alone on the roads. My entire line of thought has been that an inclusive way forward is the one likely to be most effective. Something you have (perhaps unwittingly) agreed with by stating:


The ONLY solution that has any chance of working is for you to take care of yourself and stop worrying about the fact that a small proportion of the driving public don't do things in a way that you consider "safe".

That proposal would work best if EVERYONE (i.e. ALL road users) followed that line of thinking.

Katman
6th March 2014, 19:59
After all you are rebelling against society and what great power represents society's enforced restrictions than the police.


Wouldn't it be great if we just rode motorcycles because they have two wheels?

Ulsterkiwi
6th March 2014, 20:00
After all "speed" is dangerous

Nope, coming to a rapid stop is.

FJRider
6th March 2014, 20:05
How many of them came to the attention of the police - and therefore NZTA?

As I recall .. all injury accidents are required by legislation to be reported to Police within 24 hours. This is typically assumed to be only for public highway accidents.

Police will seldom be notified by less than serious/life threatening .. or death involved accidents. But still injured the riders enough to require them time off work. If NO law breaking is involved ... there is no reason to involve police. (No fault insurance remember)

Fraudulent claims ... however ... <_<

skippa1
6th March 2014, 20:06
Wouldn't it be great if we just rode motorcycles because they have two wheels?
I like that idea

Katman
6th March 2014, 20:08
I like that idea

I can't see it gaining much traction.

skippa1
6th March 2014, 20:12
I can't see it gaining much traction.
Shame.......it's a catchy phrase

FJRider
6th March 2014, 20:20
You have to supply name and address, and "other details as to identity". You also have to tell if you own the vehicle, and if you don't, who does. The questions about the gear are purely discretionary.



So as I said in one of my posts earlier .. if I said "I do not wish to take part in your survey ... can I go now .. ??" ... I'd be correct .. ???

And ... if the officer insisted I answer his questions ... ????

skippa1
6th March 2014, 20:22
So as I said in one of my posts earlier .. if I said "I do not wish to take part in your survey ... can I go now .. ??" ... I'd be correct .. ???

And ... if the officer insisted I answer his questions ... ????
Farkin ell........

you said whatttt????? And be correct???? Fark.....take your medication

AllanB
6th March 2014, 20:33
Wouldn't it be great if we just rode motorcycles because they have two wheels?

Wash your mouth - what would the general public think if that got out there, good grief there could be people who have never ridden who start thinking about two wheels. Motorcycles could start selling in numbers again, bike shops reopening all over the country as Joe Public takes to this concept of 'two wheels are OK', Jesus man, Councils might have to rethink motorcycle parking in the CBD. Shit local business people may consider making NZ made riding gear.
Government may have to properly reassess ACC charges. And worst possible case, the NZ importers of motorcycles and motorcycling associated consumables may be so overwhelmed at the volume that are having to supply they may be forced to lower their prices to something considered 'reasonable'.

No Sir, that idea of yours goes beyond palatable. Best Joe Public remains ignorant to the joys of two wheels.

haydes55
6th March 2014, 21:12
Personally I haven't seen or heard anything about this here in Wgtn but what I did notice while traveling round the Waikato was the abundance of signs targeted at bikers. You know, the road is not a racetrack, don't get in drivers blind spots yadda yadda yadda. What I DIDN'T see were the signs saying "oi, drivers, take a second bloody look for bikes" etc.

It would seem we bikers are going to be under a bit of pressure for a while especially in the "killing zone" also known as Waikato especially after the last months mishaps which cost a few lives and injured several others.

I spoke with several riders while on my 20 day working trip none of which received a ticket or lecture from me. Most were actually bloody pleasant and just happy to have a yack and also happy to find some of us cops also ride bikes and also get frustrated with the way bikers are often picked on.

As for the gear survey, shit, if they want to ask sensible questions I have no problem with that at all. OK, even I get a bit annoyed when somebody who knows nothing about what they are policing asks dumb questions but I also temper that with the knowlage that making that roadside interaction can and often does find stolen bikes (and we here all loath scum sucking bike stealers) and also often finds unlicenced riders who very frequently cost us in ACC statistics which effect us all.

Just my one cent





I disagree with every single one of those signs. If you need a sign to tell you not to ride in drivers blind spots, the sign should just read "catch a bus instead of crashing".

Signs which say "keep left unless passing" should be replaced with a cop who actually tickets people for this shit.

FJRider
6th March 2014, 21:42
Farkin ell........

you said whatttt????? And be correct???? Fark.....take your medication

Post # 35 in this thread.

Short time memory loss huh ... surefire sign your meds are playing up with you ...

And I was quoting you ... :killingme


Got ya google going aye......(I did say there were amendments too)
still can't detain for a survey

anyway.......as said way back, not going to debate it. You sit on the side of the road answering survey questions like an egg, perfect accompaniment for bacon

They can stop you at random ... for NO reason at all .. NOW .. !!

And with your license in their hot little hand ... and are you then going to fuck off from them .. ???

"Safety" check or any other check (whats in a name ... eh). They want you to stop you ... they can and will.

Don't want to answer .. Don't. .. "I do not wish to take part in your survey" is all you need to say. Followed by "Can I go now"

DONE ... and you do if they say yes.


Too simple for you ... ???

yevjenko
6th March 2014, 22:15
Wouldn't it be great if we just rode motorcycles because they have two wheels?

Absolutely. I started to ride cos it was fun. I wasn't rebelling. Do I stick to speed limits? Not where I think it's appropriate not to. Does that make me a rebel? No. Do I refuse/avoid education? No, although I will always question it's bias.

sent from my phone (so scuze auto correct typos)

yevjenko
6th March 2014, 22:20
they may be forced to lower their prices to something considered 'reasonable'.

I... have a dream... that one day....

sent from my phone (so scuze auto correct typos)

GrayWolf
6th March 2014, 23:59
Until some dickwad unexpectedly pulls out of a driveway and totally flattens you.

Ah but cant you read? Katman doesnt need ATTGATT, He's too fucking brilliant at observation and riding skills to be caught out by 'mere mortals'....

All Hail the great God Katman.

GrayWolf
7th March 2014, 00:03
If you ride around with your eyes shut you deserve to be flattened.

All Hail Katman,

the great God with the 'all seeing' 3rd eye....... :rolleyes:

jasonu
7th March 2014, 01:47
If you ride around with your eyes shut you deserve to be flattened.

Silly me I forgot you are without fault.

Kickaha
7th March 2014, 05:36
Ah but cant you read? Katman doesnt need ATTGATT

No one needs ATGATT, attitude and observation is way more important than any amount of gear

Voltaire
7th March 2014, 05:53
No one needs ATGATT, attitude and observation is way more important than any amount of gear

That's ok for you guys in the sticks, you don't have a million texting, phoning, Hip hop windows down, nose picking, noodle eating, makeup applying, lane changing, speeding, blind, deaf cagers , you just have some blokes on tractors.

skippa1
7th March 2014, 06:12
Post # 35 in this thread.

Short time memory loss huh ... surefire sign your meds are playing up with you ...

And I was quoting you ... :killingme



They can stop you at random ... for NO reason at all .. NOW .. !!

And with your license in their hot little hand ... and are you then going to fuck off from them .. ???

"Safety" check or any other check (whats in a name ... eh). They want you to stop you ... they can and will.

Don't want to answer .. Don't. .. "I do not wish to take part in your survey" is all you need to say. Followed by "Can I go now"

DONE ... and you do if they say yes.


Too simple for you ... ???
At no point have I ever said don't stop......I just said you don't have to hang around for a survey

yes.....yes you are simple.....some call it just straight out dumb

swbarnett
7th March 2014, 06:41
youre right of course. Motorcycling is obviously far too dangerous for anyone. It should be illegal.
What the fuck are you on about? Nowhere did I ever say motorcycling was dangerous. All I said was that you have to look after yourself and to hell with trying to change the behaviour of others.

Akzle
7th March 2014, 06:45
What the fuck are you on about? Nowhere did I ever say motorcycling was dangerous. All I said was that you have to look after yourself and to hell with trying to change the behaviour of others.

relax tim. NOTHING IS SRS.

swbarnett
7th March 2014, 06:53
Its a pity you have quoted me out of context, this must account for your being confused as to my meaning.
Of course incidents involving only motorcycles will not be directly helped with that.

If you actually read my comments and the entire thread you will see the discussion that had developed with Ratuscat was concerning the police being frustrated with high rates of serious incidents recently.
I did read your entire post and the entire thread. If you were just referring to these incidents then that wasn't clear to me.

However, my point still stands. Irrespective of how many other vehicles are involved there is only one person that you have any real ability to control - you.


the spate of recent serious incidents
Therein lies the problem. This is a blip of no more statistical significance than any similar period with no accidents.


That proposal would work best if EVERYONE (i.e. ALL road users) followed that line of thinking.
But it only takes one to follow it to keep you safe.

swbarnett
7th March 2014, 07:02
relax tim. NOTHING IS SRS.
Sorry, one of my pet peeves is anyone calling motorcycles dangerous (hence the third line of my sig). The mere suggestion that I said so is something I tend to object strongly to.



SRS?

Katman
7th March 2014, 07:52
All Hail the great God Katman.

You may now kiss my ring.

Ulsterkiwi
7th March 2014, 08:01
I did read your entire post and the entire thread. If you were just referring to these incidents then that wasn't clear to me.

Fair enough


However, my point still stands. Irrespective of how many other vehicles are involved there is only one person that you have any real ability to control - you.

If that was your point, cant argue.


Therein lies the problem. This is a blip of no more statistical significance than any similar period with no accidents.

No, the problem is the police will not share your interpretation and will try to address this blip, public pressure will require them to as well. Not liking the interpretation or not agreeing with it will not change things.



But it only takes one to follow it to keep you safeR.

fixed it for you. I refer you to.....


However, my point still stands. Irrespective of how many other vehicles are involved there is only one person that you have any real ability to control - you.

Can't have it both ways. The most effective change is one with all stakeholders buying into it.

angle
7th March 2014, 13:45
I had a look at a different response in the last couple of years, trying to engage with motorcyclists, have them take ownership of the issues, and to promote solutions that bikers can implement themselves.

The response has been underwhelming. I had one bloke recently do one of the training courses in order to get off a ticket he had received. 2 weeks later I get a complaint about a guy using a cycle lave as a passing lane, and it turns out to be the same bloke.


Is using a cycle lane as a passing lane (while in traffic) really that tragic? Please expand on more of those solutions you promote.

FJRider
7th March 2014, 16:44
That's ok for you guys in the sticks, you don't have a million texting, phoning, Hip hop windows down, nose picking, noodle eating, makeup applying, lane changing, speeding, blind, deaf cagers , you just have some blokes on tractors.

And you wonder WHY we live "In the Sticks" .. :lol:

swbarnett
7th March 2014, 16:49
No, the problem is the police will not share your interpretation and will try to address this blip, public pressure will require them to as well. Not liking the interpretation or not agreeing with it will not change things.
So true. VERY few people actually understand the true nature of statistics over time. This is one negative of modern media - blips are news - long term statistics aren't.


fixed it for you. I refer you to.....
Fair enough. It is a continuum. No matter how hard you work at it some small risk will remain. That's what makes life interesting.


Can't have it both ways.
I'm not sure how that is having it both ways? I've lost count of how many situations I've been in over the years that could've easily led to my demise if my sub-conscious wasn't properly trained. Mostly from the actions of others but also, occasionaly from my own actions.


The most effective change is one with all stakeholders buying into it.
Yes and no. The most effective change is one that gets implemented. A change that is said to fail if one stakeholder doesn't buy into it will inevitably fail in a large enough population. This is the nature of the species.

Ulsterkiwi
7th March 2014, 16:57
so essentially if it was up to us the problem could be solved.....damn and I am busy this year.....:facepalm:

Dont see much there I would disagree with mate.

Akzle
7th March 2014, 17:16
Yes and no. The most effective change is one that gets implemented. A change that is said to fail if one stakeholder doesn't buy into it will inevitably fail in a large enough population. This is the nature of the species.

and just whos job is it to implement?
You can implement any shit you like, if it gets ignored, theres a failing in the system,or exactly what it is being implemented, vis, speed limits.

FJRider
7th March 2014, 17:20
Is using a cycle lane as a passing lane (while in traffic) really that tragic? Please expand on more of those solutions you promote.

Some cyclists might think so ... :laugh:

But it is illegal .... on at least 3 counts ...

Mogwa
7th March 2014, 20:36
Cyclists are a diabolical hazard on our roads anyway, since they have a special lane they dont generally use i feel its safer to ride in this than filtering on the right side of vehicles on aucklands carpark roads. and use the large box at the front of some traffiic lights designated for two wheels. doing this in sneakers, stubbies and a wife beater is makes me look awesome :headbang:while checking out pedestrians on queen st. i cant wait to do this new survey.:clap:

NighthawkNZ
7th March 2014, 23:15
Yawn.... :sleep:

Did someone say something important?????

Akzle
8th March 2014, 05:43
Yawn.... :sleep:

Did someone say something important?????

on kb??
Nope.

scumdog
8th March 2014, 09:25
Yawn.... :sleep:

Did someone say something important?????

And did somebody important say something?

"I don't think so Tim"

swbarnett
8th March 2014, 09:54
and just whos job is it to implement?
Mine. And yours if you want to. Makes no difference to me.

If I want to be safer I need to change MYSELF. I honestly don't care much what the rest of the traffic does. I will keep myself safe. It's worked for the last 30 years.

GDOBSSOR
8th March 2014, 10:12
I'm not really seeing the problem. Answer a few questions, have a nice chat and that's it. There's surely worse things to be stopped for.

Because if I'm already running late for work, why would I want to be stopped by a prat of a cop who wants to ask me some stupid questions that if they really needed to be asked could be sent out in the form of an email? It may not be a big problem, but it could also be a real inconvenience to be held up for ten minutes or so because they want to know exactly what safety gear you have.

Akzle
8th March 2014, 14:19
Mine. And yours if you want to. Makes no difference to me.

If I want to be safer I need to change MYSELF. I honestly don't care much what the rest of the traffic does. I will keep myself safe. It's worked for the last 30 years.

i think we're on the same page. But that requires neither implementation nor enforcement (of some arbitrary shit that some arbitray shit (politician, likely) made up)
doing questionaires roadside with the stasi certainly isnt in my rams.

scumdog
8th March 2014, 15:56
Because if I'm already running late for work, why would I want to be stopped by a prat of a cop who wants to ask me some stupid questions that if they really needed to be asked could be sent out in the form of an email? It may not be a big problem, but it could also be a real inconvenience to be held up for ten minutes or so because they want to know exactly what safety gear you have.

Wa-wa-fuckin' wa, so how many times a day will this be happening to you......or any other motorcyclist?:rolleyes:

angle
8th March 2014, 16:19
Some cyclists might think so ... :laugh:

But it is illegal .... on at least 3 counts ...
The question is - "Should it be illegal?".

FJRider
8th March 2014, 16:25
The question is - "Should it be illegal?".

The cyclists might think so ... :laugh:

NighthawkNZ
8th March 2014, 20:36
And did somebody important say something?

"I don't think so Tim"

In that case I go back to sleep there... I tired of of all the bs...

scumdog
8th March 2014, 20:52
In that case I go back to sleep there... I tired of of all the bs...

Yep, KB is way more full of bs (of the 'not-fun' type) compared to a few years back.

Akzle makes Skidmark look flash.....as for the rest...pffft...

R650R
9th March 2014, 09:15
Popos around the country are rolling their collective eyes at the disproportionate rate of biker deaths, and wondering what to do about it.

Various districts come up with different responses. And some don't do much at all. That makes the others stand out.

I'm sure that a national response will be formulated.

Traditionally the response to motorcycle deaths is to hammer the shit out of bikers. This has led to an antagonistic relationship between Police and some bikers.

Some bikers never run foul of Police, some do frequently.

I had a look at a different response in the last couple of years, trying to engage with motorcyclists, have them take ownership of the issues, and to promote solutions that bikers can implement themselves.

The response has been underwhelming.

The problem is you and the govt agencies only look at the road user and their vehicle, and grudgingly sometimes the crappy roads.
Other factors are the PC world being so restrictive now the only outlet for fun, sillyness, adventure in an easy manner is the roads for many.
Then there is the fatigue factor with so many people doing shiftwork and multiple jobs these days.
And the astronomical price of petrol means prob a lot of people riding bikes that wouldn't and maybe shouldn't be. Start taking all those criminal taxes off petrol and you'll prob see about 25-33% of bikers spend a lot more time in their cars, the added congestion will slow traffic speeds and further reduce all crashes.
I'd offer you a donut but the problem is should you fall ill the system would find out about via the various questionaires at doctors/acc etc I could be up for bribery but the biggest hit would be a resource consent violation fine from council for operating unlicensed food stall.
As for engaging, from all the TV shows and other stuff everyone now knows that everything they say is recorded as evidence that could be used against you later. Who knows what snippit of uninteresting blurb about your daily life or a sarcastic joke that gets taken the wrong way will be recorded as. In my travels as a night driver I used to bump into your colleagues often, at petrol stations, 24hr supermarkets and the odd crash scene. For the most part this was a normal exchange of chit chat but over the years it has changed. Now when you say hello there is often a brief blank stare in return as you are now trained to evaluate every member of the public as a potential suspect/wanted/witness. There are a few minor exceptions where some still behave in a relaxed human manner but rare, sounds like your probably one of them, maybe.
And if someone says bollocks well I was listening to a major NZ radio station when a prominent journalist read out a document on air stating this was the new way and that cops were to treat every interaction with public as opportunity to gather evidence and analyse that person etc... They must have got a good spanking and not been supposed to have that paper as apart from that night at 8.50pm I never heard about that again or could find info on it...
BTW that donut offered would be a Cinnamon cream donut :)

rastuscat
9th March 2014, 13:44
Is using a cycle lane as a passing lane (while in traffic) really that tragic? Please expand on more of those solutions you promote.


Thing is, there's using a cycle lane, then there's using a cycle lane.

Some folk use them at low speed alongside stationary traffic, having a wary eye on traffic turning left or right, riding at a speed where they can stop when it goes wrong.

Some others ride at 50 kmh, coz that's the speed limit. And coz they are going straight, they know that everyone is going to give way to them because they have to. In their world, anyway.

I bet if I had stopped this dude 10 minutes before the crash he'd have said it was revenue collecting bullshit, that it was perfectly safe, that I should go and get a real job.

294674

Riding in cycle lanes is bloody dangerous for cyclists. Worse for motorcyclists.

Kickaha
9th March 2014, 14:15
Some others ride at 50 kmh, coz that's the speed limit. And coz they are going straight, they know that everyone is going to give way to them because they have to. In their world, anyway..

So if you get cleaned up using a cycle lane by someone turning in front of you who gets in the crap? are both considered at fault and charged?

Akzle
9th March 2014, 15:00
Akzle makes Skidmark look flash.....as for the rest...pffft...

awww. Thats the noicest thing youve said to me,

possibly anyone. Actually.

swbarnett
9th March 2014, 16:57
i think we're on the same page. But that requires neither implementation nor enforcement
Enformcement no. However, it does require implementation ever time we ride.

rastuscat
10th March 2014, 05:16
So if you get cleaned up using a cycle lane by someone turning in front of you who gets in the crap? are both considered at fault and charged?

Depends on circumstances.

The crash in the pic led to the rider getting pinged for riding a 1700 cc bike on a learners (not LAMS, that one), and riding in a cycle lane. Car driver got pinged for failing to give way when turning.

Fully depends on circumstances.

GrayWolf
10th March 2014, 12:16
Wa-wa-fuckin' wa, so how many times a day will this be happening to you......or any other motorcyclist?:rolleyes:

ActuallyScummy, to be fair, if I am on my way to work? I do NOT have '10 minutes' to spare. Like most people, I know how long it takes to get there, and my job is set by a timetable that is NOT 'negotiable'.. (I work shifts and start at any time of day between 3am and 7pm) Unless the 'popo officer' would like to explain to up to 1000 commuters why their train didnt run! :cool:

blue rider
10th March 2014, 13:15
not sure what you guys are on about

this is legal

294708

as long as you are a sikh, wear a turban and ride no faster than 50kms....whats the issue?

also travelling less then 30 on a farm from one end to the other ....blahblahblah

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/licence/assistance/exemptions.html

Kendoll
11th March 2014, 09:19
Who are we to judge?
And who makes the judgement as to what's stupid?

Ask Cassina, I believe they've already volunteered to be judge of who gets ACC and who doesn't :killingme

swbarnett
11th March 2014, 10:09
Ask Cassina, I believe they've already volunteered to be judge of who gets ACC and who doesn't :killingme
And here's me thinking it was a no fault system. Silly me.