12 months loss of licence & $500 for drunk driving [Archive]

McWild

19th May 2015, 16:04

... a 5.5kw childrens go-kart at an empty private estate, in the middle of the night, and knocking over a mate.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/68677836/drink-driving-conviction-for-kids-gokart-crash

The judge said the man's actions were irresponsible and no different from a person driving while drinking on a quiet rural road at night.

Irresponsible? I guess. That second bit? Lets get some perspective.

*Note this wasn't me.

oldrider

19th May 2015, 16:39

FFS! - :scratch:

Paulo

19th May 2015, 16:58

FFS indeed! the guy's wearing safety glasses in the photo, He can't be that irresponsible.

In other crime related news I see they let that crook from the finance company (who lost the life savings of hundreds of elderly folks) out of jail early, He's going to continue with his new found love of gardening on a private estate (probably still actually his but put into trust or something).... sigh.

Banditbandit

19th May 2015, 17:04

they decided to do time trials around the surrounding road on a privately-owned go-kart.

The victim suffered bruising to his leg, a cut to his head that required stitches and concussion. He required a night's hospital stay.

He was drunk ... he was driving ... he was on a public road ... he injured his mate ... he got fined and suspended .. as he should ..

If he was using an actual car and did not get convicted, fined and suspended you'd all be screaming about that ...

HenryDorsetCase

19th May 2015, 17:08

I like kittens

Banditbandit

19th May 2015, 17:09

I like kittens

:rofl: :laugh: This thread deserved that ...

TheDemonLord

19th May 2015, 17:27

He was drunk ... he was driving ... he was on a public road ... he injured his mate ... he got fined and suspended .. as he should ..

If he was using an actual car and did not get convicted, fined and suspended you'd all be screaming about that ...

I too agree partially with this sentiment - Drink Driving is a serious issue in this country and taken far to casually by the population.

However - I also see the arguement that it was a childs go kart and not an actual 'Vehicle' (say one that was registered as a road going vehicle) and I also see the argument that while his mate was injured - who here hasn't had a nasty bruise and a concussion for playing silly buggers after a couple?

Katman

19th May 2015, 17:50

I like kittens

You would have loved me when I was little.

Moi

19th May 2015, 17:54

He was drunk ... he was driving ... he was on a public road ... he injured his mate ... he got fined and suspended .. as he should ..

If he was using an actual car and did not get convicted, fined and suspended you'd all be screaming about that ...

I am not trying to excuse his actions in any way. However, I find the reporting to be less than complete...

Was it a "public road"? The media report leaves that open to question:

Armiger had been drinking with three friends at a unit attached to the Highlands Motorsport Park in Central Otago on January 31 when they decided to do time trials around the surrounding road on a privately-owned go-kart.

They were the only people in the restricted area as the other units were in the process of being constructed or were empty.

** around the surrounding road ** Have google mapped Highlands Motorsport Park and both the map and Earth view do not indicate where these units are and so what road was used.

** restricted area ** if the area is restricted and the public are not able to access the area, is the road still a public road?

If anyone can throw some light on which road was being used and it's position relative to the units then we all might have a better idea of where it all happened.

Tazz

19th May 2015, 18:39

What would have happened if he didn't have a 'license' I wonder.

scumdog

19th May 2015, 19:11

I too agree partially with this sentiment - Drink Driving is a serious issue in this country and taken far to casually by the population.

However - I also see the arguement that it was a childs go kart and not an actual 'Vehicle'

Yeah, being hit by a go-kart always hurts less than being hit by a car...

FJRider

19th May 2015, 19:44

I am not trying to excuse his actions in any way. However, I find the reporting to be less than complete...

Was it a "public road"? The media report leaves that open to question:

Where Public could have access ... On private property (or not) if the gates are closed (but not locked) .. public could have access.

Armiger had been drinking with three friends at a unit attached to the Highlands Motorsport Park in Central Otago on January 31 when they decided to do time trials around the surrounding road on a privately-owned go-kart.

The ownership of the vehicle is in question now .. WHY .. ??? privately owned vehicles cannot be driven "whilst under the influence" ...

They were the only people in the restricted area as the other units were in the process of being constructed or were empty.

But he DID manage to run into a person HE KNEW WAS THERE ... :shifty:

** around the surrounding road ** Have google mapped Highlands Motorsport Park and both the map and Earth view do not indicate where these units are and so what road was used.

Google maps is about 9 years behind actual ... look again in about six years ... :shifty:

** restricted area ** if the area is restricted and the public are not able to access the area, is the road still a public road?

Drink driving is NOT restricted to just PUBLIC ROADS ... :shifty:

If anyone can throw some light on which road was being used and it's position relative to the units then we all might have a better idea of where it all happened.

Near the Highlands Motorsport track ... :shifty:

FJRider

19th May 2015, 19:48

What would have happened if he didn't have a 'license' I wonder.

You can still be charged with drink driving offences ... even if you do not have a drivers license ... :doh:

Oakie

19th May 2015, 19:54

HenryDorsetCase

19th May 2015, 20:01

You would have loved me when I was little.

I love you now.

Madness

19th May 2015, 20:02

Interesting.
Given that the go-cart probably can't be registered for the road(?) and you don't need a licence to drive one(?) how can you take his car licence away? He just happened to use the cart on a road. If he were drunk on a horse on the road (horse can't be registered, no licence required), would he lose his drivers licence?

It's a bit like losing your fishing licence for throwing a stone at a duck on a pond.

Horses are not motor vehicles. Go-karts are considered motor vehicles in the eyes of the law when being operated on the road and the registration status of any motor vehicle being operated on a public road whilst over the alcohol limit is irrelevant when considering a charge of driving with excess alcohol.

Smifffy

19th May 2015, 20:02

Interesting.
Given that the go-cart probably can't be registered for the road(?) and you don't need a licence to drive one(?) how can you take his car licence away? He just happened to use the cart on a road. If he were drunk on a horse on the road (horse can't be registered, no licence required), would he lose his drivers licence?

It's a bit like losing your fishing licence for throwing a stone at a duck on a pond.

I could very well be wrong, but I understood that you can be charged with drink drive if you are on a bicycle.

At least Popo threatened me with that many years ago when I would ride me treadly to/from the pub. I thought I was bein a good boy offiser

HenryDorsetCase

19th May 2015, 20:05

Interesting.
Given that the go-cart probably can't be registered for the road(?) and you don't need a licence to drive one(?) how can you take his car licence away? He just happened to use the cart on a road. If he were drunk on a horse on the road (horse can't be registered, no licence required), would he lose his drivers licence?

It's a bit like losing your fishing licence for throwing a stone at a duck on a pond.

I think you can get pinged for riding a bicycle drunk (or deeeee - runk as I like to say) and that don't need lo licence neither.

My favourite one of all is the deeeee runk guy on the lawnmower.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNPxIibhcKY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNPxIibhcKY

Steeeeeve

Moi

19th May 2015, 20:14

Where Public could have access ... On private property (or not) if the gates are closed (but not locked) .. public could have access.

** That was my understanding but further on in the report it is noted to be a "restricted area" - so, were there gates and if so were the gates locked?

The ownership of the vehicle is in question now .. WHY .. ??? privately owned vehicles cannot be driven "whilst under the influence" ...

** I did not question the ownership of the vehicle - my question was about the road and whether it was a "public road". The road was stated to be "surrounding" - what was it surrounding? a building or complex of buildings within the fence of the motorsport park. If inside the fence, did that mean that there was restricted access because the gate was both closed and locked?

But he DID manage to run into a person HE KNEW WAS THERE ... :shifty:

** Very true, he did run into someone - someone who needed medical attention

Google maps is about 9 years behind actual ... look again in about six years ... :shifty:

** Not a helpful statement, I think you might be exaggerating slightly - I was hoping someone who has been to the motorsport park may have been able to throw some light on that aspect.

Drink driving is NOT restricted to just PUBLIC ROADS ... :shifty:

** Very true - But the question was about the "public-ness" of the road...

Near the Highlands Motorsport track ... :shifty:

** Again, a far from helpful comment.

Oakie

19th May 2015, 20:39

Go-karts are considered motor vehicles in the eyes of the law when being operated on the road . well if that's correct then ... all good!

I could very well be wrong, but I understood that you can be charged with drink drive if you are on a bicycle.
But would they take your car driver's licence off you? And if they did, you could still ride your bike. Oh God, I don't even know what point I'm trying to make now. I must have worked too hard today.

Madness

19th May 2015, 20:42

http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/blogs/are-we-there-yet/3156431/Drink-cycling-is-it-legal

FJRider

19th May 2015, 21:16

- so, were there gates and if so were the gates locked?

Obviously not ... the police (and ambulance) got in ... :doh:

** I did not question the ownership of the vehicle - my question was about the road and whether it was a "public road". The road was stated to be "surrounding" - what was it surrounding? a building or complex of buildings within the fence of the motorsport park. If inside the fence, did that mean that there was restricted access because the gate was both closed and locked?

I just answered that in the previous question ... :doh:

** Very true, he did run into someone - someone who needed medical attention

Perhaps ... assault with a vehicle might ALSO be appropiate ... :doh:

** Not a helpful statement, I think you might be exaggerating slightly - I was hoping someone who has been to the motorsport park may have been able to throw some light on that aspect.

I live less than a kilometer from the Motorsport Park. They are building stuff FAST there ... all the time. You need to visit daily to keep up ... :doh:

Me ... unhelpful ... :eek: ... and I was NOT exaggerating regarding Google maps.

** Very true - But the question was about the "public-ness" of the road...

You're a bit slow tonight ... that subject was covered in the first two sentences ... :doh:

** Again, a far from helpful comment.

The park really isn't that big. You know where the track is ...

The north side is Cemetary rd. West is the Museum and resturant. (and car park and garages) East is a Chafer Beetle reserve.

Which leaves SOUTH.

Ender EnZed

19th May 2015, 21:18

The moral of the story here is that when something goes wrong while drinking with the boys; everyone needs to tell a consistent lie to avoid liability.

Virago

19th May 2015, 21:20

The victim suffered bruising to his leg, a cut to his head that required stitches and concussion. He required a night's hospital stay.

The cut to his head required both stitches and concussion? :scratch:

FJRider

19th May 2015, 21:36

The cut to his head required both stitches and concussion? :scratch:

Call Hitcher ... bad grammer will not be tolerated ... :pinch:

Virago

19th May 2015, 21:43

Call Hitcher ... bad grammer will not be tolerated ... :pinch:

Ed Zachary. Nor will bad grammar.

Erelyes

19th May 2015, 22:33

Call Hitcher ... bad grammer will not be tolerated ... :pinch:

What the fuck does Nana have to do with it?

Madness

19th May 2015, 22:34

Ed Zachary.

Ed's Jewish?

mada

19th May 2015, 22:46

Certain bikes should not be punished for driving drunk too! Come on, I drive a little Honda for christ's sake, chances are the go kart would hurt someone more officer! :Police:

T.W.R

19th May 2015, 23:08

The cut to his head required both stitches and concussion? :scratch:

Southern Anesthetic :bash:

HenryDorsetCase

20th May 2015, 09:45

The moral of the story here is that when something goes wrong while drinking with the boys; everyone needs to tell a consistent lie to avoid liability.

Same as when we're running a finance company? Gotcha!

Banditbandit

20th May 2015, 14:17

If he were drunk on a horse on the road (horse can't be registered, no licence required), would he lose his drivers licence?

Possibly - that's up to the judge ..

But would they take your car driver's licence off you?

Quite possibly

And if they did, you could still ride your bike.

Strangely enough - yes .. if it was a bicycle - not a motorcycle.

neels

20th May 2015, 20:52

One would have to assume the area was deemed a public road, regardless of the fact that access was restricted due to construction in progress.

Probably lucky he didn't get done for operating an unregistered vehicle not up to WOF standard as well, the moral is doing dumb shit in public places when you're pissed is all good fun until someone loses an eye, or ends up in hospital with concussion.

FJRider

20th May 2015, 21:20

One would have to assume the area was deemed a public road, regardless of the fact that access was restricted due to construction in progress.

The law says you must not drive if the amount of alcohol in your blood or breath exceeds these limits. No mention it only applies only if you are on a public road.

Just as the wearing of a helmet is required by law ... if you ride a motorcycle/bicycle. ON or OFF road ... private/restricted property or not.

Probably lucky he didn't get done for operating an unregistered vehicle not up to WOF standard as well, the moral is doing dumb shit in public places when you're pissed is all good fun until someone loses an eye, or ends up in hospital with concussion.

On private property with no demonstrated use ... or intention to use ... on the public roads .... ??? :scratch:

Such charges would be laughed out of court.

neels

20th May 2015, 21:34

The law says you must not drive if the amount of alcohol in your blood or breath exceeds these limits. No mention it only applies only if you are on a public road.
Really?

56 Contravention of specified breath or blood-alcohol limit
(1) A person commits an offence if the person drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a road while the proportion of alcohol in the person's breath, as ascertained by an evidential breath test subsequently undergone by the person under section 69, exceeds 400 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath

Just as the wearing of a helmet is required by law ... if you ride a motorcycle/bicycle. ON or OFF road ... private/restricted property or not.

Again, really?

7.12 Safety helmets for all terrain vehicles, motorcycles, and mopeds
(1) A person must not drive or ride on an all terrain vehicle, on a motorcycle, in a sidecar, or on a moped on a road unless the person is wearing a safety helmet of an approved standard that is securely fastened

So really, one can only assume the area where the incident occurred is gazetted as a legal road, otherwise there would have been no case to answer, or it went to court and FJRider was the lawyer for the defence :rofl:

Smifffy

20th May 2015, 22:09

Really?

56 Contravention of specified breath or blood-alcohol limit
(1) A person commits an offence if the person drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a road while the proportion of alcohol in the person's breath, as ascertained by an evidential breath test subsequently undergone by the person under section 69, exceeds 400 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath

Again, really?

7.12 Safety helmets for all terrain vehicles, motorcycles, and mopeds
(1) A person must not drive or ride on an all terrain vehicle, on a motorcycle, in a sidecar, or on a moped on a road unless the person is wearing a safety helmet of an approved standard that is securely fastened

So really, one can only assume the area where the incident occurred is gazetted as a legal road, otherwise there would have been no case to answer, or it went to court and FJRider was the lawyer for the defence :rofl:

As you point it, it refers to a road, not specifically a public road. A private road, or paper road would also qualify if they wanted to get picky.

FJRider

20th May 2015, 22:12

As you point it, it refers to a road, not specifically a public road. A private road, or paper road would also qualify if they wanted to get picky.

Even actually ... Anywhere public have access.

neels

20th May 2015, 22:21

Even actually ... Anywhere public have access.
Assuming you refer to this...

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

In which case you can hoon about pissed to your hearts content on your mate's farm as long as you close the gate, but a legal road which is temporarily fenced off will still meet the legal definition of a road.

Not withstanding if you injure someone on private land being a dick there is bound to be something you can be charged with, if someone bothered to look hard enough.

If it was me I'd be pissed off that it made the news so everyone knew about it, and even more pissed off that they'd used such a shit photo.

skippa1

20th May 2015, 22:24

Assuming you refer to this...

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

In which case you can hoon about pissed to your hearts content on your mate's farm as long as you close the gate, but a legal road which is temporarily fenced off will still meet the legal definition of a road.

Not withstanding if you injure someone on private land being a dick there is bound to be something you can be charged with, if someone bothered to look hard enough.

If it was me I'd be pissed off that it made the news so everyone knew about it, and even more pissed off that they'd used such a shit photo.

Paragraph (d)

FJRider

20th May 2015, 22:48

(d)a place to which the public have access, whether as of right or not ...

True ...

In which case you can hoon about pissed to your hearts content on your mate's farm as long as you close the gate, but a legal road which is temporarily fenced off will still meet the legal definition of a road.

As long as you close and LOCK the gate. Plus install signs that state KEEP OUT.

I've worked on farms ... and had issues with unwanted visitors ... Liability issues/dangers to unwanted/unexpected visitors on private land are still a sore point with farm owners.

Not withstanding if you injure someone on private land being a dick there is bound to be something you can be charged with, if someone bothered to look hard enough.

If it was me I'd be pissed off that it made the news so everyone knew about it, and even more pissed off that they'd used such a shit photo.

If they injure themselves without you warning them of the dangers ... you might also be liable ... (even if you didn't know they were coming)

Workplaces are now required to list all site dangers at the entrances .. And farms are now workplaces.

FJRider

20th May 2015, 22:57

Paragraph (d)

Guilty as charged then ... and he injured a mate.

skippa1

21st May 2015, 06:54

Guilty as charged then ... and he injured a mate.
Yes......

i dont like paragraph's like that though, its another "cover all" phrase, just like "all reasonable steps" or no discernable odour"

subjective and put in place to allow lawmakers/enforcers to take action against anyone for anything