demerits is it worth it?

[sofiathomsons123]

went to New plymouth on Friday last got a ticket for speeding
dam it. now this is my story.
doing 105 ish down a big steep hill just before the awakino gorge some place starting with M but anyway this hill three lanes down hill anyway saw the 50klms temp for road works but rounded a gentle right and pinged at 81 klms not more than 100m in the zone. $300 plus 40 merit points.
I was real nice to the man but he hit me anyway.
so I recon I was real hard done by this time but is it worth writing to the police and point out the sillyness of it all?
Has anyone here ever got a let off for writing in to the police? if so how did you do it? were you greasing or firm whats the secret?
of shall I just pay up and move on? is a court hearing expensive and how much? If there are any traffic Police listening
F**K UP frankly

[AllanB]

Good luck.

As I read your post.

You saw a 50 km road works sign, ignored it and got pinged for doing 81.

Which part do you think you'll get off?



In your defense just about everyone ignores road works speed signs.


Oh and I'd not mention the bit about doing 105 when you write in - they may send another fine.

[Berries]

There are always a couple of potential loop holes when it comes to temporary speed limits but you just said you saw the 50 signs and were done for 81km/h after you passed them. What you hoping to get off with?

EDIT - Beaten to it, I type too slow.

[Laava]

Wow, there are so many ways this thread could go...my money is on some abuse within the first page followed by Cassiner within the first four and then moderation to remove the posts abusing Cassiner.

[jellywrestler]

doing 105 ish

can you be more accurate please?

[SaferRides]

I've written 3 or 4 letters and got off twice.

I'd suggest emphasising that you were in the process of slowing down from 100. It's a bit unfair to ping you just into a temporary speed limit as nearly everyone takes their time slowing down, but I wouldn't recommend that argument. Just state clearly and accurately what happened.

Good luck!

[mulletman]

Radar dectector would probably been worth it...;)

[rastuscat]

It's a bit unfair to ping you just into a temporary speed limit as nearly everyone takes their time slowing down,!

That's why signs are red and white, with black numbers, so you can see them even before you get to them.

If you start slowing down when you first see them the "it's not fair" argument looks a little insignificant.

We have developed an expectation of tolerance. For this reason tend to ride within the tolerance.

The speed in the OP is well above the tolerance. Save the price of the stamp. Suck it up.

[SaferRides]

That's why signs are red and white, with black numbers, so you can see them even before you get to them.

If you start slowing down when you first see them the "it's not fair" argument looks a little insignificant.

We have developed an expectation of tolerance. For this reason tend to ride within the tolerance.

The speed in the OP is well above the tolerance. Save the price of the stamp. Suck it up.

I was just answering the OP's question as to whether it's worth writing a letter.

Regardless, to be 30 over a temporary speed limit is putting yourself in a position to be pinged.

[release_the_bees]

Off topic but related: I wish the police would focus on the temporary speed limits when there's roadworks on the Auckland motorway at night. It's bloody dangerous trying to do the temporary 50 km/h limit when everyone else is whizzing by at 100 km/h.

I now only feel safe to slow down to about 70 km/h for these signs because it is just too dangerous to go any slower. I'd rather have a ticket than be rear-ended by a car moving 50km/h faster than me.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

[Honest Andy]

About the scariest job I ever had was working on the road.
Working around trip hazards only a metre away from cars doing 70 or more really keeps you on your toes.
Some days you just couldn't turn your back to the traffic for fear of some cunt not slowing down and running out of time to merge.
We nearly had a disaster one day when the only thing between us and a car that came through the taper, was our mate with a shovel. And he had it ready to swing at the windscreen. We didn't even know it had happened till he told us, you can't hear a thing on the motorway.

Since those days I always look carefully at closures, and do what the signs say. Sometimes the signage is poor or badly placed, sometimes too many cones or too little with a bad layout, and sometimes closures are left unattended when they probably should have been taken down.
But you never know...

Pay the fine and don't do it again.

And if you ever find yourself in a pub with road workers, buy them all a beer.

[OddDuck]

I've got a fair bit of sympathy for the OP - sounds a lot like the cop found a juicy spot to ping lots of people - but as stated, 30+ over the limit. Difficult to argue. If you do write in let us know how it goes?

[ellipsis]

...'two wrongs don't make a right', as the old adage goes...irrespective of what road rule we get pinged for, it seems that we expect our transgressions to be more weighted to our side of the story than what their side is...this doesn't sound like an open road revenue gathering thing more a specific safety thing centering around hazards...maybe a little less rider/driver entitlement and a little more thought as to why there is a temporary speed limit at that point is required...

[Berries]

I've written 3 or 4 letters and got off twice.
When I first saw your username when you started on KB I thought here we go, someone sponsored by ACC or MCSAC to post safety related party line dribble. Clearly not the case and for that I apologise.

[rastuscat]

Tips On How To Avoid Having To Post Woe About Tickets On KB

Don't do stuff that provides an opportunity for an enthusiastic Popo to record your details on an invoice.

Simple, really.

Don't want speeding tickets? Don't speed.

Don't want seatbelt tickets? Wear your seatbelt.

Don't want cellphone tickets? Stay off your cellphone while riding/driving.

Don't want tickets for not stopping at stop signs? Stop. Don't just slow down or pause, actually stop.

Don't want tickets for riding like a plonker? Don't ride like a plonker.

Following these tips would go a long way to save internet bandwidth discussing how to get off tickets.

[YellowDog]

went to New plymouth on Friday last got a ticket for speeding
dam it. now this is my story.
doing 105 ish down a big steep hill just before the awakino gorge some place starting with M but anyway this hill three lanes down hill anyway saw the 50klms temp for road works but rounded a gentle right and pinged at 81 klms not more than 100m in the zone. $300 plus 40 merit points.
I was real nice to the man but he hit me anyway.
so I recon I was real hard done by this time but is it worth writing to the police and point out the sillyness of it all?
Has anyone here ever got a let off for writing in to the police? if so how did you do it? were you greasing or firm whats the secret?
of shall I just pay up and move on? is a court hearing expensive and how much? If there are any traffic Police listening
F**K UP frankly

Many fukwits come off the road, over and under the speed limit. They also cause accidents and loss of life, over and under the speed limit. It is not their speed that is the issue, but it is their unsafe usage of the road.

400 people die on the road each year and pinging safe road users is the state's answer (not the Police). Pretty pathetic really. It just takes too much work and effort to focus on dangerous road users, so we have to accept that those stats are needed to (falsely) demonstrate that something is being done, when clearly it is not.

Endorsing unsafe driving, within the speed limit, is not what the Police should be doing, but it the effect of what we are seeing.

[Moi]

Tips On How To Avoid Having To Post Woe About Tickets On KB

Don't do stuff that provides an opportunity for an enthusiastic Popo to record your details on an invoice.

Simple, really.

Don't want speeding tickets? Don't speed.

Don't want seatbelt tickets? Wear your seatbelt.

Don't want cellphone tickets? Stay off your cellphone while riding/driving.

Don't want tickets for not stopping at stop signs? Stop. Don't just slow down or pause, actually stop.

Don't want tickets for riding like a plonker? Don't ride like a plonker.

Following these tips would go a long way to save internet bandwidth discussing how to get off tickets.


You sure your new job is in Selwyn? Not in Waikato (https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11979583)?

[R650R]

Writing in is a waste of time. One time I did I pointed out a wrong rego number was recorded on ticket. They then committed evidence fraud by altering the record of evidence. Technically a new ticket should have been issued but they wrote back admitting their crime saying “ all reference to the wrong number has been removed from the records”.... For an $80 ticket is wasn’t worth a journey to a town five hours away and a $10000 legal fight to prove my point and embarrass them...

That was good seven years ago... my latest $30 transgression on way to work is just a small fee to pay for the freedom to drive how I like. Divide it up by number of times you don’t get caught and it’s conpletely insignificant.... but demerit points suck tho....

[WALRUS]

Tips On How To Avoid Having To Post Woe About Tickets On KB

Don't do stuff that provides an opportunity for an enthusiastic Popo to record your details on an invoice.

Simple, really.

Don't want speeding tickets? Don't speed.

Don't want seatbelt tickets? Wear your seatbelt.

Don't want cellphone tickets? Stay off your cellphone while riding/driving.

Don't want tickets for not stopping at stop signs? Stop. Don't just slow down or pause, actually stop.

Don't want tickets for riding like a plonker? Don't ride like a plonker.

Following these tips would go a long way to save internet bandwidth discussing how to get off tickets.

It's almost as though if you do the right thing, Mr Plod doesn't take your money and/or licence from you.. Funny that...

I'm by no means a saint, when I was a teenager razzing around my state on an R6 I rode like an absolute tosser. I ended up losing my licence. I could have written in when I got my court summons and said "But sir, when your camera got me at double the speed limit, I was slowing down, so you should let me off" but then I realised that was a stupid argument and that I should shut up, suck it up, pay the man and buy a new pair of walking shoes.

(Not saying you're going to lose your licence, and I'm very aware that I live in a different country but seeing as you just said that you knew the limit changed and decided to carry on regardless, you've made your bed and now it's time to sleep in it)

[Moi]

...It's a bit unfair to ping you just into a temporary speed limit as nearly everyone takes their time slowing down...

I thought that the speed changed at the speed limit sign... not a bit further on or just down the road a bit...

But then again, I've been known to be wrong...

And I thought, if you wanted to slow down, you used your brakes...

[YellowDog]

Writing in is a waste of time. One time I did I pointed out a wrong rego number was recorded on ticket. They then committed evidence fraud by altering the record of evidence. Technically a new ticket should have been issued but they wrote back admitting their crime saying “ all reference to the wrong number has been removed from the records”.... For an $80 ticket is wasn’t worth a journey to a town five hours away and a $10000 legal fight to prove my point and embarrass them...

That was good seven years ago... my latest $30 transgression on way to work is just a small fee to pay for the freedom to drive how I like. Divide it up by number of times you don’t get caught and it’s conpletely insignificant.... but demerit points suck tho....

Yes indeed. Life's too short.

AND every time I do get stopped for a petty reason, like choosing to slow slowly through the gears, rather than using the brakes; I am always appreciative of the many times I have not been stopped for far more serious speeding :yes:

[jellywrestler]

That's why signs are red and white, with black numbers, so you can see them even before you get to them.

If you start slowing down when you first see them the "it's not fair" argument looks a little insignificant.

We have developed an expectation of tolerance. For this reason tend to ride within the tolerance.

The speed in the OP is well above the tolerance. Save the price of the stamp. Suck it up.

i've noticed a lot of road works don't bother removing or altering signage when they are not working on it, i get 30km's when staff are there but later on a lot could be changed to 50 or 70 so it's tough to adhere to when you see a two km straight in the middle of nowhere that clearly isn't 30km/h when you're on it, I also note a lot now have signs warning you a there's a restriction ahead, wonder how consistent these are and do people get used to seeing the first sign as a warning, so if there isn't a warning one first they take a long time to slow at the actual sign?

[Berries]

I thought that the speed changed at the speed limit sign... not a bit further on or just down the road a bit....
You could be right. But then quite a few people have the impression that there is a magic 250m radius of non-enforcement where speed limits change.

Can't imagine what gives them that impression. (http://www.police.govt.nz/faq/how-do-mobile-safe-speed-camera-vehicles-operate)

[Moi]

You could be right. But then quite a few people have the impression that there is a magic 250m radius of non-enforcement where speed limits change.

Can't imagine what gives them that impression. (http://www.police.govt.nz/faq/how-do-mobile-safe-speed-camera-vehicles-operate)

Thanks, that was interesting reading.

Can see why some do think there's a "magic 250m zone".

[pritch]

Might the place beginning with "M" be Mahoenui? There used to often be a HP car parked by the fire station. That was years ago but I still watch for it.

The temporary speed limits are dangerous now if at 40kph over, or whatever, you may be walking. It would be easy to exceed the magic number on road works so I take a lot more notice of those particular signs than I used to. As has been pointed out though, often they are completely unnecessary and seem to be an exercise in arse covering by the roading crew.

[HenryDorsetCase]

That's why signs are red and white, with black numbers, so you can see them even before you get to them.

If you start slowing down when you first see them the "it's not fair" argument looks a little insignificant.

We have developed an expectation of tolerance. For this reason tend to ride within the tolerance.

The speed in the OP is well above the tolerance. Save the price of the stamp. Suck it up.

Oh, tosh.

OP needs to spend a couple of grand on a lawyer - at least.

Guaranteed to win.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Might the place beginning with "M" be Mahoenui? There used to often be a HP car parked by the fire station. That was years ago but I still watch for it.

The temporary speed limits are dangerous now if at 40kph over, or whatever, you may be walking. It would be easy to exceed the magic number on road works so I take a lot more notice of those particular signs than I used to. As has been pointed out though, often they are completely unnecessary and seem to be an exercise in arse covering by the roading crew.

Here's a little potted review of the penalties available in the new HSWA. The sea change has been that directors of companies can be made personally liable for failings of a company, and you can't contract out of HSWA liability (i.e. your D & O insurance does not cover) plus the significant penalties for companies ($3M fine). So, people are at last taking work safety seriously.

Absolutely there is reams of arse cover and some pointless safety-wank, but particularly in an environment as fraught as road works, they will err on the side of too much than insufficient. It isnt the road crew driving it (so to speak) it is their managers and ultimately their company directors.

Its mostly a good thing in my view. I acknowledge that it increases costs of compliance and training and so forth.

http://www.markdonovan.co.nz/penalties-new-health-safety-act/

[R650R]

i've noticed a lot of road works don't bother removing or altering signage when they are not working on it, i get 30km's when staff are there but later on a lot could be changed to 50 or 70 so it's tough to adhere to when you see a two km straight in the middle of nowhere that clearly isn't 30km/h when you're on it, I also note a lot now have signs warning you a there's a restriction ahead, wonder how consistent these are and do people get used to seeing the first sign as a warning, so if there isn't a warning one first they take a long time to slow at the actual sign?

There is a set of standards and rules and I know of couple of cases where cops have fined STM type operators for failing to remove signs. The problem is when works are finished some council type has to sign off the work is done but if signs out too long it is an offence. But its funnfy how real dangerous stuff like mobile roadworks eg roadmarking does not need speed limits. Some years ago I watched two trucks approaching mine at the start of a curved passing lane, the rear truck was too close to see the roadmarker in fast lane and pulled out to pass the other truck..... All three of us needed a change of under wear and the road marker crew probably suffered some tyre smoke inhalation on a serious level.....

Trouble is there are so much roadworks everywhere its prob hard for average joe to ring up and complain accurately and wrongly signposted sites....

[Banditbandit]

went to New plymouth on Friday last got a ticket for speeding
dam it. now this is my story.
doing 105 ish down a big steep hill just before the awakino gorge some place starting with M but anyway this hill three lanes down hill anyway saw the 50klms temp for road works but rounded a gentle right and pinged at 81 klms not more than 100m in the zone. $300 plus 40 merit points.
I was real nice to the man but he hit me anyway.
so I recon I was real hard done by this time but is it worth writing to the police and point out the sillyness of it all?
Has anyone here ever got a let off for writing in to the police? if so how did you do it? were you greasing or firm whats the secret?
of shall I just pay up and move on? is a court hearing expensive and how much? If there are any traffic Police listening
F**K UP frankly


I don't think it's worth it. Sometimes shit happens ...

A while ago I was doing 185 klicks to catch my mates - when I realized the car coming towards me was white with blue and yellow stripes ... as I got close he turned his lights on, wagged his finger at me ... turned his lights off and kept going .. another one got me at 114 klicks - did the song and dance and gave me a ticket ..

I figure it balances out ..

[rambaldi]

went to New plymouth on Friday last got a ticket for speeding
dam it. now this is my story.
doing 105 ish down a big steep hill just before the awakino gorge some place starting with M but anyway this hill three lanes down hill anyway saw the 50klms temp for road works but rounded a gentle right and pinged at 81 klms not more than 100m in the zone. $300 plus 40 merit points.
I was real nice to the man but he hit me anyway.
so I recon I was real hard done by this time but is it worth writing to the police and point out the sillyness of it all?
Has anyone here ever got a let off for writing in to the police? if so how did you do it? were you greasing or firm whats the secret?
of shall I just pay up and move on? is a court hearing expensive and how much? If there are any traffic Police listening
F**K UP frankly

You are just lucky it didn't happen over in Aus or the parts of the US where penalties are automatically doubled for infractions in temporary speed limit areas.

[Banditbandit]

i've noticed a lot of road works don't bother removing or altering signage when they are not working on it, i get 30km's when staff are there but later on a lot could be changed to 50 or 70 so it's tough to adhere to when you see a two km straight in the middle of nowhere that clearly isn't 30km/h when you're on it, I also note a lot now have signs warning you a there's a restriction ahead, wonder how consistent these are and do people get used to seeing the first sign as a warning, so if there isn't a warning one first they take a long time to slow at the actual sign?

The speed restrictions are only partly there for the safety of the road crew. Sure, that is a very important factor.

But they are also there to help repair the road. If there is no seal hen the speed restrictions keep down the damage on the surface. Any breaking, any gear change, and sharp turns, puts pressure on the loose surface and can damage it. Once there is a small amount of damage that quickly builds up, so a small rut is slightly bigger each time a vehicle passes over it - even at the required speed - but worse if it is a faster speed.

So a road crew can spend quite a bit of a day repairing the damage caused over night by speeding vehicles - and do that night after night.

There is a very rough section of road between Whakatane and Ohope. It's on a corner going down hill - bumpy as. No-one followed the speed limit, so the bumps are the result of cars putting too much pressure on the area of the road works, as the tyres pushed across the broken surface.

Now everyone complains about the rough road - not realising it is largely a result of their own actions, because "there was no road crew there at the time so there was no safety issue - so I didn't follow the speed limit."

[jasonu]

Off topic but related: I wish the police would focus on the temporary speed limits when there's roadworks on the Auckland motorway at night. It's bloody dangerous trying to do the temporary 50 km/h limit when everyone else is whizzing by at 100 km/h.

I now only feel safe to slow down to about 70 km/h for these signs because it is just too dangerous to go any slower. I'd rather have a ticket than be rear-ended by a car moving 50km/h faster than me.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

Or when the lazy cunts leave the temp speed signs out when the work is long completed.

[Honest Andy]

Or when the lazy cunts leave the temp speed signs out when the work is long completed.

Yeah that was us. We always left the signs behind at the end of the work. And cones and sandbags and piles of metal and the arrowtruck. Cos we were lazy cunts. Cunt.

[jasonu]

Cos we were lazy cunts.

Sounds about right.

[rastuscat]

i've noticed a lot of road works don't bother removing or altering signage when they are not working on it, i get 30km's when staff are there but later on a lot could be changed to 50 or 70 so it's tough to adhere to when you see a two km straight in the middle of nowhere that clearly isn't 30km/h when you're on it, I also note a lot now have signs warning you a there's a restriction ahead, wonder how consistent these are and do people get used to seeing the first sign as a warning, so if there isn't a warning one first they take a long time to slow at the actual sign?

Notably, the 30 kmh is often left in place to protect the road surface they are trying to repair. The faster cars and trucks go, the greater the damage done to new surfaces.

Whether workers are there or not.

I'm with you though, as it frustrates me the temporary limits that appear to be there for no reason at all. But that's mainly because I'm not a roading engineer, and I'm sure there are reasons I don't know about.

[Moi]

Notably, the 30 kmh is often left in place to protect the road surface they are trying to repair. The faster cars and trucks go, the greater the damage done to new surfaces.

Whether workers are there or not.

I'm with you though, as it frustrates me the temporary limits that appear to be there for no reason at all. But that's mainly because I'm not a roading engineer, and I'm sure there are reasons I don't know about.

There you go... there's a wee challenge for you, about road safety... educate the good folks of Selwyn as to why speed restrictions are used and why they may be left in place when "all the work seems to have been done".

Until I read bandit's post I hadn't thought of the damage to a road while it is being repaired, but once you think about it, it's obvious, just look at a corner on a gravel road... lovely set of corrugations.

[caspernz]

Might the place beginning with "M" be Mahoenui? There used to often be a HP car parked by the fire station. That was years ago but I still watch for it.

The temporary speed limits are dangerous now if at 40kph over, or whatever, you may be walking. It would be easy to exceed the magic number on road works so I take a lot more notice of those particular signs than I used to. As has been pointed out though, often they are completely unnecessary and seem to be an exercise in arse covering by the roading crew.

Permanent speed limit exceeded by 40 km/h you've got an automatic 28 day suspension of licence. For a temporary limit you get it at 50 km/h over. Not suggesting anyone goes faster thru works, but there's a bit of wiggle room...


The speed restrictions are only partly there for the safety of the road crew. Sure, that is a very important factor.

But they are also there to help repair the road. If there is no seal hen the speed restrictions keep down the damage on the surface. Any breaking, any gear change, and sharp turns, puts pressure on the loose surface and can damage it. Once there is a small amount of damage that quickly builds up, so a small rut is slightly bigger each time a vehicle passes over it - even at the required speed - but worse if it is a faster speed.

So a road crew can spend quite a bit of a day repairing the damage caused over night by speeding vehicles - and do that night after night.

There is a very rough section of road between Whakatane and Ohope. It's on a corner going down hill - bumpy as. No-one followed the speed limit, so the bumps are the result of cars putting too much pressure on the area of the road works, as the tyres pushed across the broken surface.

Now everyone complains about the rough road - not realising it is largely a result of their own actions, because "there was no road crew there at the time so there was no safety issue - so I didn't follow the speed limit."

Have heard this same story many times from the roadworks crews. As a career trucker it's damn annoying when fellow truckers boot thru works at pace, then when the seal has gone down they'll bitch about it being bumpy or lumpy. Never mind how many truckers don't slow down much at all, then get annoyed when our lads run thru at the limit, can't put this down to ignorance of why the temporary limits are there. Plain arrogance and don't give a hoot about anyone else sums it up. We had a car run into the back of one of our units thru a 30 km/h new chip section a while back, make of that what you wish, as the truck was rolling thru at the limit...:clap: No damage to trailer (heavy DG bumpers are nice) yet car needed to be towed :rolleyes:

[FJRider]

I was just answering the OP's question as to whether it's worth writing a letter.

Regardless, to be 30 over a temporary speed limit is putting yourself in a position to be pinged.

Of course it's worthwhile him writing the letter ... his grammar does need work ... so a bit of "official" letter writing is bound to help that ... ;)

31 (ish) km/hr over the limit ... he gambled on not getting caught (as many do) and lost. It happens ... such is life ... :whistle:

[FJRider]

Oh, tosh.

OP needs to spend a couple of grand on a lawyer - at least.

Guaranteed to win.

Or ... the cheaper option of paying the fine.

But ... he has his principals to be staunch to ... he has (by his own admission) pretty hard done by ... ;)

[Honest Andy]

Sounds about right.

I spose I should've known not to waste perfectly good sarcasm on a seppo

[Old Steve]

OP, it may be worth writing in. If you feel there was insufficient distance from seeing the sign to allow you to slow down in time. Tell them you were doing 100 km/hr, saw the sign, activated your brakes and had slowed down to 81 by the time you'd entered the restricted speed area, and were still slowing when you were ticketed.

Its worth a letter, but if they turn you down then just suck it up and pay the fine.

[jellywrestler]

Notably, the 30 kmh is often left in place to protect the road surface they are trying to repair. The faster cars and trucks go, the greater the damage done to new surfaces.

Whether workers are there or not.

I'm with you though, as it frustrates me the temporary limits that appear to be there for no reason at all. But that's mainly because I'm not a roading engineer, and I'm sure there are reasons I don't know about.

i am aware of the 30km'h on fresh seal to stop it ripping up, but there are times when the speed when unstaffed should be increased.

[ruaphu]

Sorry bud, but ya just got nailed by one by the best and strictest roading officers in the land. Many have been nailed by this chap, in a section of highway prone to accidents. Quite frankly, good on him. And before ya whine, he’s got me too.

The fact you ignored mandatory speed signs for a roading works area...... tuff, ya fucked up, deal with it.

Road workers have to put up with shit from piss poor roads users every bloody day. Look at it from their perspective, your shit could cost them their life. Think about that, respect what roadies do and slow down. Shit, it may just avoid a big fuck up for you or a roadie.

Have fun, stay shiny side up and wave to our roadie friends........... after all, these grafters make and maintain our sacred alter of fun................. tarmac.

Btw, if ya offended cos ya know im right, lol




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GazzaH]

Pay the thrill tax and practice being more observant.

[rastuscat]

.........practice being more observant.

That would involve taking responsibility.

This is KB.

Mutually exclusive.

[AllanB]

That would involve taking responsibility.

This is KB.

Mutually exclusive.


Are you implying that there may not be a 90 day adjustment period for the lower speed signs in Selwyn? ;)

[russd7]

went to New plymouth on Friday last got a ticket for speeding
dam it. now this is my story.
doing 105 ish down a big steep hill just before the awakino gorge some place starting with M but anyway this hill three lanes down hill anyway saw the 50klms temp for road works but rounded a gentle right and pinged at 81 klms not more than 100m in the zone. $300 plus 40 merit points.
I was real nice to the man but he hit me anyway.
so I recon I was real hard done by this time but is it worth writing to the police and point out the sillyness of it all?
Has anyone here ever got a let off for writing in to the police? if so how did you do it? were you greasing or firm whats the secret?
of shall I just pay up and move on? is a court hearing expensive and how much? If there are any traffic Police listening
F**K UP frankly

id say suck it up buttercup, and probably get ya brakes checked if you couldn't slow to 50 from 105ish in the the time from when you saw the sign till nearly 100m past the sign.

people don't take enough notice of temporary road signs, they often don't take any notice of accident signs and flashing lights. don't be in such a hurry

[rastuscat]

Are you implying that there may not be a 90 day adjustment period for the lower speed signs in Selwyn? ;)

My boss led the speed limit review. He's been with the council for 35 years. He knows a thing or two.

Speed in NZ is really easy to comply with.

You can go as fast as you like as long as it's not faster than the number on the sign.

You can go as slow as you like as long as you don't hold anyone up.

Easy.

[YellowDog]

My boss led the speed limit review. He's been with the council for 35 years. He knows a thing or two.

Speed in NZ is really easy to comply with.

You can go as fast as you like as long as it's not faster than the number on the sign.

You can go as slow as you like as long as you don't hold anyone up.

Easy.

Yip.... you can drive recklessly and dangerously, just so long as that number isn't breached. Take a sharp wet bend at 99kph and it wasn't your fault. Sue the council, get the bend straightened, get a special super grippy surface put on the road.

Why bother with indicators, so long as you are only doing 99kph. 400 people dead on the roads and road safety is still low priority.

Whilst speed and road safety continue to mean the same thing, nothing is going to change.

[jellywrestler]

My boss led the speed limit review. He's been with the council for 35 years. He knows a thing or two.

Speed in NZ is really easy to comply with.

You can go as fast as you like as long as it's not faster than the number on the sign.

You can go as slow as you like as long as you don't hold anyone up.

Easy.

the law could also police things other than speed and alcohol but rarely do, they may have the odd blitz on seatbelts etc but fuck all else.
Why, cause it's easy, pull someone up for careless driving they get a lawyer, take the cop into court for a couple of hours etc, so the cops simply don't bother, whens the last time someone got a ticket for not stopping at a pedestarian crossing until the pedestarian is back on the footpath? anybodies guess,
why don't the cops put cameras in the cars and police bad driving instead of falling back on speed speed speed as the be all and end all of our road deaths?

[rastuscat]

the law could also police things other than speed and alcohol but rarely do, they may have the odd blitz on seatbelts etc but fuck all else.
Why, cause it's easy, pull someone up for careless driving they get a lawyer, take the cop into court for a couple of hours etc, so the cops simply don't bother, whens the last time someone got a ticket for not stopping at a pedestarian crossing until the pedestarian is back on the footpath? anybodies guess,
why don't the cops put cameras in the cars and police bad driving instead of falling back on speed speed speed as the be all and end all of our road deaths?

Speeding tickets make up about a third of tickets written.

My maths leads me to believe that the other two thirds aren't speeding tickets.

The main problem is perception. The TV campaigns don't help.

[YellowDog]

Speeding tickets make up about a third of tickets written.

My maths leads me to believe that the other two thirds aren't speeding tickets.

The main problem is perception. The TV campaigns don't help.

Fair enough. Our perception is possibly influenced by the 'we're not cops, but we want you to think we are' Hyundai vans, doing their revenue thing, with zero tolerance.

So far as cops go, 95% good, but I do have a problem with the young foreign cops, especially the Ruskies and Safas. Not good with their standards (from back home) and give good cops a bad name.

[rastuscat]

Fair enough. Our perception is possibly influenced by the 'we're not cops, but we want you to think we are' Hyundai vans, doing their revenue thing, with zero tolerance.

So far as cops go, 95% good, but I do have a problem with the young foreign cops, especially the Ruskies and Safas. Not good with their standards (from back home) and give good cops a bad name.

Saw one of those vans today. Nil markings on the front or back. Marked sides.

Remarkably, i didnt have to worry. As i dont speed.

[Berries]

whens the last time someone got a ticket for not stopping at a pedestarian crossing until the pedestarian is back on the footpath?
Hopefully never. A bit like not crossing the road if a car has already passed the painted diamond, it might sound good in the road code but has no legal basis.

Ducks are ok though - Give way to ducks (http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-isle-of-man-44271295/motor-racing-fans-help-ducks-across-tt-route)

[SaferRides]

The main problem is perception. The TV campaigns don't help.

Don't get me started on TV campaigns.

"Keep to the speed limits and you'll be OK when you crash."

[YellowDog]

Saw one of those vans today. Nil markings on the front or back. Marked sides.

Remarkably, i didnt have to worry. As i dont speed.

I generally don't speed either. I use cruise control, both on bike and car.

My last ticket was because the road was going downhill and the cop training session was at the bottom of the hill, of a wide straight road. I got stopped doing 35Kph. Apparently my speed, at the very steepest part of the hill, was 61Kph. Pretty pathetic really. 400 people a year die on the roads and I am getting harassed by those empowered to protect us. On my next trip down that very same stretch of road, I selected a lower gear and was still doing around 55Kph (no police trap this time). I guess I am going to have to start using my brakes more, if I am going to survive in this police state.

I was annoyed because, I was riding sedately and was stopped whilst using the road as safely as I considered was reasonable, for the conditions. The subjective analysis did not agree. I guess I should no longer ride slower in the rain or around bends, because whilst I might end up injured or dead, I will still pass the subjective analysis, of being within the speed limit.

Surely the rules should work both ways. In my experience, most police officers exercise discretion and are good at their jobs. Those young foreign types are often, not so good :no:

[jellywrestler]

Hopefully never. A bit like not crossing the road if a car has already passed the painted diamond, it might sound good in the road code but has no legal basis.


part of the reason you're required to stay stopped until they are back off the road is so other traffic can see stopped vehicles when they may not see pedestrian, it's probably the least observed road rule we've got, yet nothing is done about it, on the streets or an ad campaign

[jellywrestler]

The TV campaigns don't help. that's cause they all treat you like shit, when are they going to have ones that actually educate you? most people stop learning the day they get their license, and it all goes downhill from there.

[Moi]

part of the reason you're required to stay stopped until they are back off the road is so other traffic can see stopped vehicles when they may not see pedestrian, it's probably the least observed road rule we've got, yet nothing is done about it, on the streets or an ad campaign

Plus, pedestrians who believe that traffic stops "instantly" if the just step out onto a crossing... what happened to "Stop, look right."? Should be painted on the ground... A nearby crossing is terrible - vehicles parked legally in sight lines for both pedestrians and traffic. Also, what's so hard to say "thank you" to a driver who has stopped for you?



that's cause they all treat you like shit, when are they going to have ones that actually educate you? most people stop learning the day they get their license, and it all goes downhill from there.

Totally agree... start with education about Stop signs and Red lights... I'm sure Stop signs apply to the vehicle facing the sign not other traffic...

the VicRoads people had a few rather graphic ads some years ago that re-inforced a few basic principles of road rules...

[Berries]

part of the reason you're required to stay stopped until they are back off the road is so other traffic can see stopped vehicles when they may not see pedestrian, it's probably the least observed road rule we've got, yet nothing is done about it, on the streets or an ad campaign
I have always considered myself fairly knowledgeable on the Road Rules due to a previous job. Although I am taking this off topic a bit I am genuinely interested to know where you got this from. Is this an old NZ rule? I know it is not current, all the current rule says is you have to give way. There is an argument as to when you have complied with that, ie when they have passed in front of you or when they have got to the kerb, but not aware of any offence caused by pulling away before they have got to the footpath on the other side.

[HenryDorsetCase]

whens the last time someone got a ticket for not stopping at a pedestarian crossing until the pedestarian is back on the footpath? anybodies guess,
why don't the cops put cameras in the cars and police bad driving instead of falling back on speed speed speed as the be all and end all of our road deaths?

wait whut? you just need to wait till theyre off your side of the road then you can go...

I felt bad the other day I was turning in a queue of people waiting to turn, light went green nobody moved, I waited the usual respectful two seconds then blasted the horn..... then saw the really doddery old person on the walking frame INCHING across three lanes of traffic. Clearly had a deathwish and wanted to die.

[Moi]

I have always considered myself fairly knowledgeable on the Road Rules due to a previous job. Although I am taking this off topic a bit I am genuinely interested to know where you got this from. Is this an old NZ rule? I know it is not current, all the current rule says is you have to give way. There is an argument as to when you have complied with that, ie when they have passed in front of you or when they have got to the kerb, but not aware of any offence caused by pulling away before they have got to the footpath on the other side.

Here you go (http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/roadcode/about-other-road-users/sharing-road-with-pedestrians/)

OK, it's the Road Code and so not the legislation, but I'm sure someone can find the legislation...

[Berries]

Current legislation is part 10.1 of the Road User Rule. The Road Code link you posted states that you must "wait until the pedestrian has crossed in front of you and is clear of your vehicle before you proceed - see give way rules." No mention of waiting for them to reach the footpath which was my point. Perhaps it was in the 1976 Traffic Regs but it is not covered now.

[jasonu]

I spose I should've known not to waste perfectly good sarcasm on a seppo

Except you come off as a bit of a dick rather than sarcastic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q3k7K11cyQ

[Moi]

Current legislation is part 10.1 of the Road User Rule. The Road Code link you posted states that you must "wait until the pedestrian has crossed in front of you and is clear of your vehicle before you proceed - see give way rules." No mention of waiting for them to reach the footpath which was my point. Perhaps it was in the 1976 Traffic Regs but it is not covered now.

The Road Code states:

• if there is no raised traffic island in the middle of the crossing, stop and give way to pedestrians on any part of the crossing
• if there is a raised traffic island in the middle of the crossing, stop and give way to pedestrians on your half of the road
• wait until the pedestrian has crossed in front of you and is clear of your vehicle before you proceed - see give way rules.

I have put into bold the section referring to a pedestrian crossing, as opposed to two pedestrian crossings which are joined in the middle of the road by "raised traffic island" - on these you give way to pedestrians on YOUR side.

Land Transport (Road User) Act 2004 states:

10.1 Pedestrian crossings

(1) A driver approaching a pedestrian crossing must—
(a) give way to pedestrians, and to riders of wheeled recreational devices or mobility devices,—
(i) on the pedestrian crossing; or
(ii) obviously waiting to cross it and who are not behind a school patrol sign; and

(b) if necessary, slow down and stop the driver’s vehicle for that purpose.

(2) A driver approaching a pedestrian crossing must not enter the crossing if the driver’s intended passage is blocked by stationary traffic.

(3) For the purposes of this clause, if a pedestrian crossing is interrupted by a raised traffic island, the parts of the crossing that are situated on different sides of that traffic island must be regarded as separate pedestrian crossings.

(4) This clause does not apply to a pedestrian crossing that is for the time being controlled by an enforcement officer.

Compare: SR 1976/227 r 12(1), (3)

Clause 10.1(1)(a): substituted, on 1 November 2009, by clause 34 of the Land Transport (Road User) Amendment Rule 2009 (SR 2009/253).
Clause 10.1(1)(a)(ii): amended, on 1 October 2011, by clause 19 of the Land Transport (Road User) Amendment Rule 2011 (SR 2011/307).

Amendment Rule 2009 states:
Pedestrian crossings

Clause 10.1(1)(a) is revoked and the following paragraph substituted:
“(a) give way to pedestrians, and to riders of wheeled recreational devices or mobility devices,—
“(i) on the pedestrian crossing; or
“(ii) obviously waiting to cross it; and”.


I'm going with what is in the Road Code, that is a pedestrian crossing that goes from one kerb to the other with no middle island is "a pedestrian crossing" and that traffic must give way to a pedestrian any where on that crossing.

[Berries]

Yeah, I know all that but think you misunderstand me. When do you think you have complied with giving way to a pedestrian, once they have passed you or once they have reached the other side of the crossing, or median if there is one?

Look at it this way. At a T intersection when you have to give way to a car coming from your right before pulling out you let them go past. How far do you let them go up the road to your left before you deem you have complied? Surely it is the same thing?

Can you 'give way' to something travelling away from you? I would suggest that 'way' is given once they have passed you.

[Moi]

Yeah, I know all that but think you misunderstand me. When do you think you have complied with giving way to a pedestrian, once they have passed you or once they have reached the other side of the crossing, or median if there is one?

I consider I have complied with "giving way to a pedestrian" when they reach the other side of the crossing, whether that is the kerb on the other side of the road or the kerb of the median island closest to my side of the road. In the past the road rule said you had to wait until the pedestrian had passed from in front of you and then you could drive across the pedestrian crossing behind the pedestrian.


Look at it this way. At a T intersection when you have to give way to a car coming from your right before pulling out you let them go past. How far do you let them go up the road to your left before you deem you have complied? Surely it is the same thing?

At a T-intersection I would move off after the other vehicle has cleared or almost cleared the intersection which I take as the area bounded, for argument's sake, by lines from the corners to the other side of the road. As for this being the same thing, no. The road code states you stop and give way to a pedestrian on any part of the crossing, that is the key part of the requirement - "any part of the crossing". I'd suggest that your analogy to an intersection is not the same as a pedestrian crossing.


Can you 'give way' to something travelling away from you? I would suggest that 'way' is given once they have passed you.

Whereas I'd suggest that it has nothing to do with when the pedestrian has passed in front of you but has everything to do with when the pedestrian steps off the pedestrian crossing which is a section of the road that crosses from one kerb to the other or to a mid-road island.

However, in the intersection example, once the other vehicle has passed out of the quadrant that you need to give way to then you have given way to that vehicle.

[rastuscat]

Yeah, I know all that but think you misunderstand me. When do you think you have complied with giving way to a pedestrian, once they have passed you or once they have reached the other side of the crossing, or median if there is one?

Look at it this way. At a T intersection when you have to give way to a car coming from your right before pulling out you let them go past. How far do you let them go up the road to your left before you deem you have complied? Surely it is the same thing?

Can you 'give way' to something travelling away from you? I would suggest that 'way' is given once they have passed you.

Yup.

10 karakturs.

[caspernz]

I consider I have complied with "giving way to a pedestrian" when they reach the other side of the crossing, whether that is the kerb on the other side of the road or the kerb of the median island closest to my side of the road. In the past the road rule said you had to wait until the pedestrian had passed from in front of you and then you could drive across the pedestrian crossing behind the pedestrian.

In practical terms you're expected to remain stationary until the pedestrian has cleared your lane, or your side of the road, whether there's an island or pedestrian refuge in centre of road.

[FJRider]

In practical terms you're expected to remain stationary until the pedestrian has cleared your lane, or your side of the road, whether there's an island or pedestrian refuge in centre of road.

The rules ...

-if there is no raised traffic island in the middle of the crossing, stop and give way to pedestrians on any part of the crossing

-if there is a raised traffic island in the middle of the crossing, stop and give way to pedestrians on your half of the road

[Berries]

Moi posted the actual rules above, we just have a different interpretation of when you have given way and can pull off.

Anyway, those bloody temporary speed limits........

[Moi]

In practical terms you're expected to remain stationary until the pedestrian has cleared your lane, or your side of the road, whether there's an island or pedestrian refuge in centre of road.

That may be "practical", but I'm going to suggest that by doing so you are not complying with the legislation as stated in the act or as it's explained in the road code. The act states give way to a pedestrian "on a pedestrian crossing" and the road code states "stop and give way to pedestrians on any part of the crossing". To me the key word in the road code is "any" and in the act the key words are "on a pedestrian crossing".

In our local area the majority of pedestrian crossings that are not traffic light controlled are of the island in the middle of the road type. At present I can think of only one pedestrian crossing that goes from one kerb to the other and as that crossing is in the middle of a shopping village, I will continue to stop and wait for a pedestrian to leave any part of the crossing before proceeding.

[caspernz]

The rules ...

-if there is no raised traffic island in the middle of the crossing, stop and give way to pedestrians on any part of the crossing

-if there is a raised traffic island in the middle of the crossing, stop and give way to pedestrians on your half of the road

That's not how it's being taught though, and yes my recall is as per your statement above.

Was caught out by this myself, when on the I endorsement course recently. We can make the mistake of remembering what was in the Road Code from days gone by, never mind that the Road Code isn't the legislation itself.

[Moi]

Moi posted the actual rules above, we just have a different interpretation of when you have given way and can pull off.

And that's the problem... we should never have to "interpret" what a road rule means. There should never be any ambiguity as to what a road rule means.


Anyway, those bloody temporary speed limits........

Possibly a pro-active response from NZTA with education - both the safety and the road construction aspects - followed up by an active policing of temporary speed limits.

[FJRider]

That's not how it's being taught though, and yes my recall is as per your statement above.

Was caught out by this myself, when on the I endorsement course recently. We can make the mistake of remembering what was in the Road Code from days gone by, never mind that the Road Code isn't the legislation itself.

The AA point of view ...

https://www.aa.co.nz/cars/ask-an-expert/legal-advice/show/88/

[caspernz]

The AA point of view ...

https://www.aa.co.nz/cars/ask-an-expert/legal-advice/show/88/

Yep, that's how I read it as well. Can't argue with that, all I'm sharing that at present driving instructors are being taught a more liberal interpretation than what's written in the Road User Rule. I shall refrain from listing the other "anomalies" that were discussed on the course. :brick:

[FJRider]

I'm with you though, as it frustrates me the temporary limits that appear to be there for no reason at all. But that's mainly because I'm not a roading engineer, and I'm sure there are reasons I don't know about.

I've seen a few thread moans on here about issues with un-signed road works.

Which would you prefer ... a warning of possible issues for you ... or NO warning .. ???

Even a small patch of gravel might be enough ruin yours (or somebody else's) day.

Not all road works is over the entire width of the road. Often it's only in part of one lane. As such ... the signs are required to be placed.

[pritch]

That may be "practical", but I'm going to suggest that by doing so you are not complying with the legislation as stated in the act or as it's explained in the road code. The act states give way to a pedestrian "on a pedestrian crossing" and the road code states "stop and give way to pedestrians on any part of the crossing". To me the key word in the road code is "any" and in the act the key words are "on a pedestrian crossing".

In our local area the majority of pedestrian crossings that are not traffic light controlled are of the island in the middle of the road type. At present I can think of only one pedestrian crossing that goes from one kerb to the other and as that crossing is in the middle of a shopping village, I will continue to stop and wait for a pedestrian to leave any part of the crossing before proceeding.

You are focussing on the wrong words. The key words are "give way", once the pedestrians have passed out of your "way" you are free to go.

[Virago]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


went to New plymouth on Friday last got a ticket for speeding
dam it. now this is my story.
doing 105 ish down a big steep hill just before the awakino gorge some place starting with M but anyway this hill three lanes down hill anyway saw the 50klms temp for road works but rounded a gentle right and pinged at 81 klms not more than 100m in the zone. $300 plus 40 merit points.
I was real nice to the man but he hit me anyway.
so I recon I was real hard done by this time but is it worth writing to the police and point out the sillyness of it all?
Has anyone here ever got a let off for writing in to the police? if so how did you do it? were you greasing or firm whats the secret?
of shall I just pay up and move on? is a court hearing expensive and how much? If there are any traffic Police listening
F**K UP frankly

[Big Dog]

You could be right. But then quite a few people have the impression that there is a magic 250m radius of non-enforcement where speed limits change.

Can't imagine what gives them that impression. (http://www.police.govt.nz/faq/how-do-mobile-safe-speed-camera-vehicles-operate)

From your link, the bold sentence seems pertinent:
Where a safe speed camera is deployed in an area where drivers are making the transition from a higher speed limit to a lower speed limit the safe speed camera vehicle must not be positioned closer than 250 (two hundred and fifty) metres from the point where the speed limit reduces. This restriction does not apply within School Zones or Temporary Speed limit sites.