On line petition against zero tolerence crap

[wingnutt]

well it looks like folks have finally got seriously pissed off of being ripped off by the zero tolerance crap being pulled by the police on our roads, and a online petition has been started to get it stopped last count was over 11,000 signatures

here is the link http://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/2nmvvs/petition_against_zero_speed_tolerance/

[Akzle]

from:nzta
to: petition

dear valued customer/fuck you cunt, just try avoiding us,

your opinion is important to us/ it isnt, really. We have shares in vaseline.

We will forward your concerns to the apropriate dept/ your letter didnt get past the secretarys rubbish bin

we will take into consideration the points raised/ fuck man, this coke is pretty shit

and action accordingly/ holy fuck, bill from accounts is trying to fuck a dead whore on the reception couch

we thank you for your patience and will advise you of the outcome/ shit, get a bucket, shazzas on her third lindauer magnum and that coffee table aint gonna hold!

Yours sincerely/ fuck up, vote up but most importantly pay up.
darryl from pr.
-nzta

[scumdog]

well it looks like folks have finally got seriously pissed off of being ripped off by the zero tolerance crap being pulled by the police on our roads, and a online petition has been started to get it stopped last count was over 11,000 signatures

here is the link http://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/2nmvvs/petition_against_zero_speed_tolerance/

11,000 retards who all think they will get a speeding ticket for travelling at 1kph over the speed limit...:rolleyes::weird::facepalm:

[wingnutt]

11,000 retards who all think they will get a speeding ticket for travelling at 1kph over the speed limit...:rolleyes::weird::facepalm:


well I don’t know where you patrol scumdog but can tell you that is exactly what has been going on, in fact police have been pulling drivers out of lines of cars at 100kph and fining them for doing bloody nothing wrong other than breaking a technicality by about 2kph that has been documented.

and to be quite honest if you think its justified to fine a person because they are driving responsibly even at 105 or 110kph and you cant see that this is nothing but ripping drivers off for doing nothing wrong, then seriously you need to take good hard look at the bullshit your bosses are pulling.

I’m truly really glad that folks have finally sorted out the revenue collecting bullshit that zero tolerances are all about, and maybe we can go back to some sensible policing of our roads, where a cop will target the idiots who truly deserve attention.

[Tazz]

11,000 retards who all think they will get a speeding ticket for travelling at 1kph over the speed limit...:rolleyes::weird::facepalm:

Stepfather got done for 94 with a trailer (empty), going downhill not long after being overtaken by a Linfox (55t?) truck. You might not be one but there are plenty of asshole cops on the road.

[FJRider]

well I don’t know where you patrol scumdog but can tell you that is exactly what has been going on, in fact police have been pulling drivers out of lines of cars at 100kph and fining them for doing bloody nothing wrong other than breaking a technicality by about 2kph that has been documented.

and to be quite honest if you think its justified to fine a person because they are driving responsibly even at 105 or 110kph and you cant see that this is nothing but ripping drivers off for doing nothing wrong, then seriously you need to take good hard look at the bullshit your bosses are pulling.

I’m truly really glad that folks have finally sorted out the revenue collecting bullshit that zero tolerances are all about, and maybe we can go back to some sensible policing of our roads, where a cop will target the idiots who truly deserve attention.

If the "line of traffic" is exceeding the posted speed limit ... the worst place to be is the last vehicle in that line.(nothing behind you to register on the radar) But as a general rule ... they wont interrupt (pull out a vehicle from) the flow of traffic. Unless it has been seen overtaking (IN/Through) that line of traffic. (With *555 .. it makes it a good chance .. that will happen)

105 km/hr and 110 km/hr is over the usual "Holiday" lowered tolerance ... and significantly over the zero tolerance this thread is about.

They just stop the idiots that attract attention ...

[BlackSheepLogic]

But as a general rule ... they wont interrupt (pull out a vehicle from) the flow of traffic. Unless it has been seen overtaking (IN/Through) that line of traffic. (With *555 .. it makes it a good chance .. that will happen)

The *555 by those righteous cunts with speed-approximation-meters causing the queue of traffic. Those cunts are the dangerous ones on the road.

[Madness]

Safer communities together.

[jasonu]

from:nzta
to: petition

dear valued customer/fuck you cunt, just try avoiding us,

your opinion is important to us/ it isnt, really. We have shares in vaseline.

We will forward your concerns to the apropriate dept/ your letter didnt get past the secretarys rubbish bin

we will take into consideration the points raised/ fuck man, this coke is pretty shit

and action accordingly/ holy fuck, bill from accounts is trying to fuck a dead whore on the reception couch

we thank you for your patience and will advise you of the outcome/ shit, get a bucket, shazzas on her third lindauer magnum and that coffee table aint gonna hold!

Yours sincerely/ fuck up, vote up but most importantly pay up.
darryl from pr.
-nzta

Sounds about right. Pretty much the same as the letters of complaint to Sky when they ditched MotoGP coverage,

[FJRider]

The *555 by those righteous cunts with speed-approximation-meters causing the queue of traffic. Those cunts are the dangerous ones on the road.

If accurate speedometers were required for WOF .. perhaps less *555 calls would be made.

[RDJ]

11,000 retards who all think they will get a speeding ticket for travelling at 1kph over the speed limit...:rolleyes::weird::facepalm:

You really ought to focus on your inherent conflict of interest. People are getting ticketed for 1-2 km/hr over the limit while police cars break the 100 km/hr limit, and do abrupt and risky U-turns, to catch them.

[Scuba_Steve]

11,000 retards who all think they will get a speeding ticket for travelling at 1kph over the speed limit...:rolleyes::weird::facepalm:

1 drongo that think they won't :bleh:

[Oakie]

because they are driving responsibly even at 105 or 110kph and you cant see that this is nothing but ripping drivers off for doing nothing wrong.

And there's the rub. Given that the limit is 100, can you even say that they are driving responsibly regardless of how well they are driving, if they are breaking the law by exceeding the limit?

[98tls]

You really ought to focus on your inherent conflict of interest. People are getting ticketed for 1-2 km/hr over the limit while police cars break the 100 km/hr limit, and do abrupt and risky U-turns, to catch them.

When you say "people" im guessing it may well be just North island "people" as ive yet to hear of anyone down here suffering such a fate and will add that down here we think things are as they should be....as for a police car breaking the speed limit:facepalm:oh the humanity.

[gjm]

The unfortunate thing is that the zero tolerance initiative means there are more people out there taking speed measurement into their own hands and not relying on the speedo in their vehicles.

It's also (sadly) documented that there are instances where people have been pulled up and cited for travelling at 101km/.h. (The right honourable member of the forum may well not be so myopic.)

However...

The law states that the speed limit is 100km/h. There are instances where exceeding this is reasonable, but can anyone tell me why they should be allowed to do so as a matter of course? Why any unauthorised road user should be exempt from the posted speed limit, except in exceptional circumstances?

That said, the police time would be far better spent on stopping overloaded vehicles travelling at 90km/h on a highway, but obviously overloaded to the stops on the suspension and weaving all over the road. Anyone recognise this, bearing in mind the recent holiday season? Or stopping vehicles sitting in the right hand lane at 96km/h, oblivious to a queue of vehicles behind them. Or a vehicle manœuvring without using mirrors (or any attempt at observation) and causing other road users to swerve or brake violently, with a knock-on effect on other road users. Or... Any number of other obvious instances of bad, illegal or dangerous driving, rather than focusing on Mr or Mrs Average who had inadvertently exceeded the limit by 1% on a long, clear downhill stretch.

[Scuba_Steve]

The law states that the speed limit is 100km/h. There are instances where exceeding this is reasonable, but can anyone tell me why they should be allowed to do so as a matter of course? Why any unauthorised road user should be exempt from the posted speed limit, except in exceptional circumstances?
.

Because it's safer for all.
But given your [assumed] view I ask you why did the cops not & why shouldn't they have ticketed buses for stopping in bus stops a couple years back??? The legislation was quite clear it was unlawful for them to stop in a bus stop but to my knowledge not a single one was ticketed. Why should they be exempt???

[98tls]

Personally i doubt anythings changed in the real world tis just provided another thing for moaning cunts to moan about on the internet simple really,no idea what the cost is of a ticket for 102kms but am betting its not going to break the bank if indeed i was unfortunate enough to get one fuck i got one the other day for 122 and dont see any reason to whinge.

[gjm]

Because it's safer for all.
But given your [assumed] view I ask you why did the cops not & why shouldn't they have ticketed buses for stopping in bus stops a couple years back??? The legislation was quite clear it was unlawful for them to stop in a bus stop but to my knowledge not a single one was ticketed. Why should they be exempt???

As I said:

"the police time would be far better spent on stopping... Any number of other obvious instances of bad, illegal or dangerous driving."

I know nothing of the actions you have described. If they were illegal, they should have been acted on. I can only assume (in my ignorance) that the police were instructed not to do so. Just as the police may have recently been instructed to stop vehicles travelling at 101 (or more) km/h.

Until someone steps up with solid facts regarding instruction (other than anecdotal ex post facto reports), anything else is conjecture.

Whatever - I agree. Demonstrably dangerous activities, regardless of location, should be addressed ahead of (relatively) minor infringements of arbitrarily imposed rules.

[BlackSheepLogic]

The law states that the speed limit is 100km/h. There are instances where exceeding this is reasonable, but can anyone tell me why they should be allowed to do so as a matter of course? Why any unauthorised road user should be exempt from the posted speed limit, except in exceptional circumstances?

Overtaking is one instance.

[gjm]

Overtaking is one instance.

Typically, no. You would be breaking the law with no adequate reason for doing so. Wait. Stay behind the slower moving vehicle. You are then adhering to the law.

[Devil's advocate.]

If you cannot safely overtake while travelling within the posted speed limits, within the available visible safe distance, you should not attempt or commence the overtaking manœuver.

[/Devils Advocate]

That said - I do agree. It is sometimes sensible to briefly exceed the posted limit in order to ensure an overtaking manœuver is completed safely. An impossible-to-foresee event could occur which would, imho, justify this.

Please note: I am playing both sides of the street. The law, and real life.

[swbarnett]

11,000 retards who all think they will get a speeding ticket for travelling at 1kph over the speed limit...:rolleyes::weird::facepalm:
Says a lot about the failure of the police PR machine.

[swbarnett]

And there's the rub. Given that the limit is 100, can you even say that they are driving responsibly regardless of how well they are driving, if they are breaking the law by exceeding the limit?
Just because it's law doesn't make it right.

[Madness]

Just because it's law doesn't make it right.

Start a partition then. Oh, hang on...

[Akzle]

half a tonne of fert and a few jerrys of diesel to the correct address i reckon...
:ar15:

[Berries]

Start a partition then.
On tolerence?

[Madness]

On tolerence?

Fuck no, look where that got the French.

[FJRider]

Just because it's law doesn't make it right.

Just because you can start a petition ... doesn't make it right ... ;)

Any petition ... OR referendum .. won't guarantee any actual action/change. The Government of the day will decide that.

[Berries]

Fuck no, look where that got the French.
Top of the spelling class?

[scumdog]

Says a lot about the failure of the police PR machine.

More likely the gullibility of petition signers....<_<

[scumdog]

half a tonne of fert and a few jerrys of diesel to the correct address i reckon...
:ar15:

All set go at your mums place right now, I suggest she moves out before the bang!:lol:

[swbarnett]

Just because you can start a petition ... doesn't make it right ... ;)
Indeed. Is there really such a thing as right and wrong? In the end it's only opinion and the laws of physics.


Any petition ... OR referendum .. won't guarantee any actual action/change. The Government of the day will decide that.
Only because ours aren't legally binding. In Switzerland we got about four referenda a month in the post and the results were all legally binding on the Government. But then, they understand who they work for..

[swbarnett]

More likely the gullibility of petition signers....<_<
And that goes to show that the police don't know the public that they're supposed to serve.

[FJRider]

Indeed. Is there really such a thing as right and wrong? In the end it's only opinion and the laws of physics.

Right/wrong. Translation .. legally/politically. The laws of gravity have ALWAYS given me the most bother ...


Only because ours aren't legally binding. In Switzerland we got about four referenda a month in the post and the results were all legally binding on the Government. But then, they understand who they work for..

This is New Zealand ... WE work for THEM. (remember .. ???)

[bsasuper]

11,000 retards who all think they will get a speeding ticket for travelling at 1kph over the speed limit...:rolleyes::weird::facepalm:

You might want to tell that to the popo up north who think they are GOD.

[scumdog]

And that goes to show that the police don't know the public that they're supposed to serve.

Fuck off, we're the public too you know.

"The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."

Rober Peel circa 1808.

[FJRider]

More likely the gullibility of petition signers....<_<

The names of those that signed the petition ... have been/ARE recorded ... for future ... ummm ... reference ... <_<

[bogan]

Fuck off, we're the public too you know.

"The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."

Rober Peel circa 1808.

Wonder what he would have thought about their time being spent on the demonstrably useless lowering of tolerances though?

[FJRider]

Wonder what he would have thought about their time being spent on the demonstrably useless lowering of tolerances though?

I doubt if he would care WHAT you thought of it.

If you travel at over the posted speed limit ... you are likely to be caught. The "Powers that be" have never said WILL be caught .... :msn-wink:

Increased Police numbers would ensure it though ... <_<

[bogan]

I doubt if he would care WHAT you thought of it.

If you travel at over the posted speed limit ... you are likely to be caught. The "Powers that be" have never said WILL be caught .... :msn-wink:

Increased Police numbers would ensure it though ... <_<

Have another read of that old fella :shutup: I suggested he might not agree with it, nothin more, nothing less...

[Berries]

All set go at your mums place right now, I suggest she moves out before the bang!:lol:
I said the very same thing about 13 years ago.


:doctor:

[RDJ]

Fuck off, we're the public too you know.

"The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."

Rober Peel circa 1808.

If you are going to quote Robert Peel, be a little less selective.

He also had this to say: In the British model of policing, police officers are regarded as citizens in uniform. They exercise their powers to police their fellow citizens with the implicit consent of those fellow citizens. "Policing by consent" indicates that the legitimacy of policing in the eyes of the public is based upon a general consensus of support that follows from transparency about their powers, their integrity in exercising those powers and their accountability for doing so.

[FJRider]

Have another read of that old fella :shutup: I suggested he might not agree with it, nothin more, nothing less...

The law is the law ... with that he would agree ...

[mossy1200]

The law is the law ... with that he would agree ...

One person or a select few telling everyone else what to do isn't a law its a dictatorship. Nobody asked the population to vote about what they thought about zero tolerance.

[swbarnett]

This is New Zealand ... WE work for THEM. (remember .. ???)
Therein lies the problem. The politicians believe this and the populace have given up on any hope of it being otherwise.

[scumdog]

If you are going to quote Robert Peel, be a little less selective.

He also had this to say: In the British model of policing, police officers are regarded as citizens in uniform. They exercise their powers to police their fellow citizens with the implicit consent of those fellow citizens. "Policing by consent" indicates that the legitimacy of policing in the eyes of the public is based upon a general consensus of support that follows from transparency about their powers, their integrity in exercising those powers and their accountability for doing so.

'General consensus' also put those that call the shots (about how police should function) into power.:bleh:

[swbarnett]

Fuck off, we're the public too you know.
Where in that statement did I exclude you from the public? It's a matter of hats when it comes to sworn personnel.

There is at least the appearance of an us and them mentality between the police and the rest of the public.


"The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."

Rober Peel circa 1808.
And yet if a non-sworn member of the public tries to defend themselves or their property they raked over the coals.

This is a great ideal but I think we are a long way from that now.

[swbarnett]

'General consensus' also put those that call the shots (about how police should function) into power.:bleh:
Wrong. Our political system is based on majority rule, not consensus.

[bogan]

The law is the law ... with that he would agree ...

Yeh, he wasn't the sort to go for changes on that subject either was he.

Oh hang on...

[FJRider]

One person or a select few telling everyone else what to do isn't a law its a dictatorship. Nobody asked the population to vote about what they thought about zero tolerance.

No votes are required to enforce existing legislation ... :facepalm:

[jasonu]

Wrong. Our political system is based on majority rule, not consensus.

I thought the NZ system was MMP not first past the post or majority rule.

[scumdog]

There is at least the appearance of an us and them mentality between the police and the rest of the public.


You said a mouthfull there brother - just look at this thread and other similar ones on KB that bang on about cops this and cops that.


Maybe cops should be on here saying KB this and KB that to balance the books?<_<

[FJRider]

Wrong. Our political system is based on majority rule, not consensus.

Police are not political ... they just enforce legislation as it is written.

[mossy1200]

No votes are required to enforce existing legislation ... :facepalm:

The existing tolerance worked fine for me. I never requested they should come down harder on me.

[FJRider]

I thought the NZ system was MMP not first past the post or majority rule.

Majority of Government can change legislation. Not the political system.

[mossy1200]

You said a mouthfull there brother - just look at this thread and other similar ones on KB that bang on about cops this and cops that.


Maybe cops should be on here saying KB this and KB that to balance the books?<_<

We haven't started putting our ugly mugs on billboards yet though.
We draw the line at doing secrete KB waves with our rsi keyboard warrior twisted wrist action.

[FJRider]

The existing tolerance worked fine for me. I never requested they should come down harder on me.

Police POLICY changes ... requires NO change of legislation. Nor public agreement.

Get over it.

[RDJ]

You said a mouthfull there brother - just look at this thread and other similar ones on KB that bang on about cops this and cops that.


Maybe cops should be on here saying KB this and KB that to balance the books?<_<

I think the police like yourself that frequent this forum make it quite clear what you think about the public you are paid to serve. If more balance is needed it should start with people like yourself looking into the mirror more often, and with more insight.

[scumdog]

I think the police like yourself that frequent this forum make it quite clear what you think about the public you are paid to serve. If more balance is needed it should start with people like yourself looking into the mirror more often, and with more insight.

No, you THINK you know what I think about the public I am 'paid to serve'.
But you don't know at all.

But if you're an representative of that public I would be quite justified in feeling less than positive about the public.

Luckily you're not such a representative.

Oh and feel free to chuck in the names of those other police like me on this forum, you imply there are quite a few....

[swbarnett]

I thought the NZ system was MMP not first past the post or majority rule.
I thought someone would say that. MMP is not as bad as FPP when it comes to majority rule but it is still a far cry from a consensus - in the election and within government.

[swbarnett]

Maybe cops should be on here saying KB this and KB that to balance the books?<_<
Nah, that would only reinforce the perception. Better to regale us with stories of police actually helping people.

[swbarnett]

Police are not political ... they just enforce legislation as it is written.
My answer was in reference to the statement below. It's about those that tell the police what to do, not the police themselves.


'General consensus' also put those that call the shots (about how police should function) into power.:bleh:

[Scuba_Steve]

'General consensus' also put those that call the shots (about how police should function) into power.:bleh:

No it didn't... even you know that!



You said a mouthfull there brother - just look at this thread and other similar ones on KB that bang on about cops this and cops that.

Maybe cops should be on here saying KB this and KB that to balance the books?<_<

You gotta remember it was the cops that have created this separation NOT the general public, only have your gang & it's leaders to blame for that

[scumdog]

No it didn't... even you know that!




You gotta remember it was the cops that have created this separation NOT the general public, only have your gang & it's leaders to blame for that

All I can say is that I'm thankful that most of the 'general public' that post on threads such as these live on another island....

[FJRider]

My answer was in reference to the statement below. It's about those that tell the police what to do, not the police themselves.

I repeat ... Police enforce LEGISLATION ... as it is written.

They seek to prevent (reduce .. ?? ) crime and crashes, improve public safety, detect and bring offenders to account, and maintain law and order.

Further instruction is NOT required. (nor appreciated)

[bogan]

I repeat ... Police enforce LEGISLATION ... as it is written.

They seek to prevent (reduce .. ?? ) crime and crashes, improve public safety, detect and bring offenders to account, and maintain law and order.

And what happens when the first bit conflicts with the second? They go online to say otherwise, cos if they say it enough it might become true?

[Scuba_Steve]

I repeat ... Police enforce LEGISLATION ... as it is written.

They seek to prevent (reduce .. ?? ) crime and crashes, improve public safety, detect and bring offenders to account, and maintain law and order.

Further instruction is NOT required. (nor appreciated)

No they don't! go read some legislation & stop being ignorant; they constantly breach legislation in the pursuit of $$$ for corrupt officials & their mates

or if it helps you to read

No they don't! ... go read some legislation ... & stop being ignorant;

they constantly breach legislation ... in the pursuit of $$$ for corrupt officials ... & their mates

[FJRider]

And what happens when the first bit conflicts with the second? They go online to say otherwise, cos if they say it enough it might become true?

The conflict starts when some know it all MP ... stands up in question time and demands that Police do as he/she see's fit ... Police discretion then comes into play ... ;)

[bogan]

The conflict starts when some know it all MP ... stands up in question time and demands that Police do as he/she see's fit ... Police discretion then comes into play ... ;)

Have another read (again), that is not what I was asking.

[gjm]

Oh, come on.

The law says that the speed limit on a given piece of road is whatever it is. Let's use the example of a nice piece of highway, with a posted limit of 100km/h.

This is not a negotiable number. The fact that the police have offered a tolerance of up to 10km/h is of potential benefit to the motoring public. However, it does not mean that anything over 100km/h but less than 110km/h is legal. It just means that if they see you travelling at those speeds, they may choose to let you get away with it. As I understand the law, they are still within their rights to pull you up and ticket you for travelling at any speed in excess of the speed limit.

Of course, you can contest this. How would it go? "But your honour, I was travelling at 104km/h which is well within the tolerance the police say they operate." "Yes, I understand the defendants position, but at 104km/h you were in breach of the law [probably quote statute number whatever here] and as such you have wasted my time, police time, and your own time. Your fine is doubled and you will now pay court costs."

Exceed the posted limit, and you could be stopped and fined. It really is that simple.

Bloody annoying and I don't like it any more than anyone else, but simple. Live with it.

Whether police time could be better spent doing something else, like pulling the fuckwit travelling eratically between Pokeno and Drury at 80, 85, 90, 95, 100, 105+, and back down the scale, mostly entirely in the right hand lane of SH1 but sometimes with two wheels either side of the dotted centre line and sometimes with two wheels over the right hand side solid line, while evidently fiddling with something on the passenger seat, is another matter. We passed two 'road safety' camera vans in that distance, but neither will have any interest in this.

[bogan]

Oh, come on.

The law says that the speed limit on a given piece of road is whatever it is. Let's use the example of a nice piece of highway, with a posted limit of 100km/h..

Another good point, how can they bin safe speeds into 20kmr slots, but adherence to those an order of magnitude more precise to be considered safe? Defies all logic really.

[SPman]

Police are not political ... they just enforce legislation as it is written.:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[PrincessBandit]

Oh, come on.

.......

Exceed the posted limit, and you could be stopped and fined. It really is that simple.

Bloody annoying and I don't like it any more than anyone else, but simple. Live with it.

Ah, but reading through this thread so far (and others of similar ilk), the majority are still going to ask "why?" Some people never grow out of asking that oft repeated childhood question, regardless of how many varied explanations they get for their troubles.

[gjm]

Another good point, how can they bin safe speeds into 20kmr slots, but adherence to those an order of magnitude more precise to be considered safe? Defies all logic really.

Agreed. It's all a bit arbitrary. There may be a criteria used for assigning speed limits to roads - I don't know.

Doesn't matter. That's a whole other conversation and discussion. Makes no difference to exceeding the posted limit and being fined, even if you could demonstrate beyond any doubt that what you were doing was perfectly safe.

[bogan]

Doesn't matter. That's a whole other conversation and discussion. Makes no difference to exceeding the posted limit and being fined, even if you could demonstrate beyond any doubt that what you were doing was perfectly safe.

Actually that is this discussion; a petition against such an illogical tolerance is one for change. The point of 'but that's the law' is the whole other conversation and discussion, so if you could kindly fuck off; take fj with you too, that'd be great.

[gjm]

Exceed the (arbitrarily assigned) posted speed limit: get a fine.

Perhaps the police will see the petition, and decide to withdraw any sort of tolerance just to make it easier for everyone. So much easier.

[Flip]

Oh, come on.

The law says that the speed limit on a given piece of road is whatever it is. Let's use the example of a nice piece of highway, with a posted limit of 100km/h.

This is not a negotiable number. The fact that the police have offered a tolerance of up to 10km/h is of potential benefit to the motoring public. However, it does not mean that anything over 100km/h but less than 110km/h is legal. It just means that if they see you travelling at those speeds, they may choose to let you get away with it. As I understand the law, they are still within their rights to pull you up and ticket you for travelling at any speed in excess of the speed limit.

Of course, you can contest this. How would it go? "But your honour, I was travelling at 104km/h which is well within the tolerance the police say they operate." "Yes, I understand the defendants position, but at 104km/h you were in breach of the law [probably quote statute number whatever here] and as such you have wasted my time, police time, and your own time. Your fine is doubled and you will now pay court costs."

Exceed the posted limit, and you could be stopped and fined. It really is that simple.

Bloody annoying and I don't like it any more than anyone else, but simple. Live with it.

Whether police time could be better spent doing something else, like pulling the fuckwit travelling eratically between Pokeno and Drury at 80, 85, 90, 95, 100, 105+, and back down the scale, mostly entirely in the right hand lane of SH1 but sometimes with two wheels either side of the dotted centre line and sometimes with two wheels over the right hand side solid line, while evidently fiddling with something on the passenger seat, is another matter. We passed two 'road safety' camera vans in that distance, but neither will have any interest in this.

Its not a Law at all its a regulation. It has the same weight in law as your dog shitting on the footpath or not having a TV licence.

[scumdog]

Its not a Law at all its a regulation. It has the same weight in law as your dog shitting on the footpath or not having a TV licence.

I don't think anybody has a 'TV licence' anymore.

And re the dog shit thing, whats' the cost of a ticket for one of them? And does it have a 'turd-size' related increase?:crazy:

And more importantly, do they come with demerits??:shutup:

[Flip]

Oamaru was $300 just for bringing your dog to town. Whats the fine for going 120kph in a 100?

http://www.odt.co.nz/regions/north-otago/219000/dog-warning-under-foot

Dog rangers, parking enforcement and now traffic enforcement.

[Madness]

Oamaru was $300 just for bringing your dog to town.

Oamaru women don't like competition, huh?

[bogan]

not having a TV licence.

How the fuck do you drive a TV :scratch:

[scumdog]

How the fuck do you drive a TV :scratch:

You don't drive 'em - you CATCH 'em, duh!:facepalm:

Minimum size is 24"

[swbarnett]

I repeat ... Police enforce LEGISLATION ... as it is written.

They seek to prevent (reduce .. ?? ) crime and crashes, improve public safety, detect and bring offenders to account, and maintain law and order.

Further instruction is NOT required. (nor appreciated)
Which I agree with but it has absolutely no relevance to what I was referring to i.e. central government.

[swbarnett]

Exceed the posted limit, and you could be stopped and fined. It really is that simple.
Anything but if you're close to said limit. There are a number of technical factors that mean that the reading taken from a car speedometer may be up to 10kph out at 100kph (this is written into the WOF requirements I believe). Simply reading a needle on a dial involves a level of inaccuracy. It is unreasonable to hold the driver accountable for this or any legitimate mechanical inaccuracy. FFS, in some countries with more brains than NZ 5kph is removed automatically from the alleged speed before any ticket is calculated for this very reason.

[PrincessBandit]

Minimum size is 24"

If your minimum size is 24" then you're in the wrong profession... :eek:

[unstuck]

If your minimum size is 24" then you're in the wrong profession... :eek:

Im picking thats a showa not a grower.:msn-wink:

[FJRider]

Which I agree with but it has absolutely no relevance to what I was referring to i.e. central government.

Central Government Enacts legislation ... Police Enforce legislation.

[Scuba_Steve]

Central Government Enacts legislation ... Police Enforce legislation.

Yet both ignore legislation.

[FJRider]

Yet both ignore legislation.

THAT is our right. The trick is not getting caught doing so ....

[Scuba_Steve]

THAT is our right. The trick is not getting caught doing so ....

it's "our right" that Govt & cops ignore legislation??? Bro, do you even read???

[Akzle]

Central Government Enacts legislation ... Police Enforce legislation.

technically, yes.

Practically, no.
beat cops iz ignurunt crunts.

[swbarnett]

Central Government Enacts legislation ... Police Enforce legislation.
Yeah, and your point is?

[Swoop]

beat cops iz ignurunt crunts.

The more you beat one, the more "ignarunt" it becomes?:scratch:
Hmmm. I feel a University sponsored research project coming on (peer reviewed, of course!).

[zooter]

'General consensus' also put those that call the shots (about how police should function) into power.:bleh:
Police leadership is falling down when it can't tell pollys to rethink.

[scumdog]

Police leadership is falling down when it can't tell pollys to rethink.

Welcome to the real world...:(

[swbarnett]

Welcome to the real world...:(
The real world as it is now, yes. The real world where managers are too scared or weak to say no to their superiors when they know full well the "order" is a dumb idea. Too often a superior's word is law and no discussion will be entered into. FFS the real civilian world is not a military unit.

The only reason we have the world we have now is that too many people became afraid to speak up and say exactly what they think. Now it's harder than ever to go back to a society where opinions are wanted and respected.