This isn't right FFS!!!

[Sniper]

Now Im not sure if this is true or not but if it isn't, I will take it to court!

After a short ride (time frame :whistle: ) to Hill Top and back with Bren_CHCH I was on my way home along manchester st. It was 8:12pm and was just getting dark but it wasn't black yet. Anyway, I got pulled over by our local constabulary, which I wasn't too fussed on because the bike doesn't look in the most warrentable condition.

Anyway, after a brief chat about the ride and the weather he proceeds to write me out a ticket. Not for speeding, not for Reg or WOF and not for any illegal or dangerous manouvers, but for having a VISOR WITH LESS THAN 35% TINT. What the Fuck! Now I know cars can get done for having tints less than 35% because they are unwarrentable. But this coppers reason was that if its hard to see in from the outside, its equally hard to see from the inside and no matter what I said, I could not convince him otherwise. Now I was riding with my visor up so it wasn't a problem but this cop wouldn't even put the helmet on to check to see through it.

So I was left with a $200 fine and a stern word from the policeman telling me to get a clear visor or one with more than 35% tint.

Im confused, is this a legit charge for a visor? And do I have a leg to stand on if I choose to argue it.

[DMNTD]

WTF!! Harsh is mild :mellow:
That shouldn't be right but when they have the badge and book what can you do? :argh:
I would of thought if your visor is up you'd be sweet...I'd better sort mine out

[miSTa]

Bad luck. Seems so wrong, but I have no idea what the law says :spudwhat:

[Motu]

Hmmmm,I don't know if there are laws on visors,but it could be taken as an extension of the glazing rule,which is why he's talking about 35%.Same as a car,you are looking through the tint,just because it's not a fixed component of the vehicle maybe doesn't mean it's exempt.If your car windows are tinted too dark,winding them down doesn't solve the problem,same as you having the visor up.I reckon you are done....I don't like tinted visors,but it's just another liberty taken from us....tickets for sunglasses next?

[spudchucka]

Thats a new one to me. Haven't EVER heard of a ticket being issued for a dark helmet visor. Having said that I have no idea what the rules are for visors so check with LTNZ. Definitely don't pay the fine until you know what the rules etc are.

[MacD]

Now Im not sure if this is true or not but if it isn't, I will take it to court!

After a short ride (time frame :whistle: ) to Hill Top and back with Bren_CHCH I was on my way home along manchester st. It was 8:12pm and was just getting dark but it wasn't black yet. Anyway, I got pulled over by our local constabulary, which I wasn't too fussed on because the bike doesn't look in the most warrentable condition.

Anyway, after a brief chat about the ride and the weather he proceeds to write me out a ticket. Not for speeding, not for Reg or WOF and not for any illegal or dangerous manouvers, but for having a VISOR WITH LESS THAN 35% TINT. What the Fuck! Now I know cars can get done for having tints less than 35% because they are unwarrentable. But this coppers reason was that if its hard to see in from the outside, its equally hard to see from the inside and no matter what I said, I could not convince him otherwise. Now I was riding with my visor up so it wasn't a problem but this cop wouldn't even put the helmet on to check to see through it.

So I was left with a $200 fine and a stern word from the policeman telling me to get a clear visor or one with more than 35% tint.

Im confused, is this a legit charge for a visor? And do I have a leg to stand on if I choose to argue it.

This is very interesting as it sounds as though he has applied the law relating to tinted windscreens to helmet visors. Considering you can use sunglasses with significantly higher levels of tint under a clear visor this seems rather absurd. As you point out you can lift a visor up out of the way.

I would seriously take this further as this appears to be establishing a significant precedent.

Here's a link I found to an LTSA Advisory Circular (http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/rules/glazing-windscreen-wipe-and-wash-and-mirrors-1999-circular.html). It only mentions front side windows with regard to the 35% minimum transmission rule. As far as I know there is no rule in NZ regarding visor tints (unlike the UK where it is up to 50% tint).

Edit: The VIRM rule (http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/publications/vir-manual/motorcycles/mc-5-vision-v2-3.pdf) states that windscreen must have no less than 70% visible light transmission, and that side windows must have no less that 35% transmission. You mention 35% tint up above, but I suspect you mean 35% transmission? What does the ticket actually say?

[sAsLEX]

If your car windows are tinted too dark,winding them down doesn't solve the problem,

If you have dark sunglasses in your pocket you sometimes wear with you open face helmet would this not be the same thing?

[Sniper]

Well thats what I checked last night was if the visor was at all glazed ect but it wasn't. I have a lot of time for the Police, but this guy was looking for a way to give me a ticket.

I also just rung the LTNZ and they say they have no rules relating to visors. They don't even care if you ride without one.

[spudchucka]

Here's the fact sheet regarding window tints.

http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/factsheets/39.html

And here is the Land Transport rules relating to glazing etc.

http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/rules/glazing-windscreen-wipe-and-wash-and-mirrors-1999.html#part2

I've had a quick glance over it and can't see anything much relating to motorcycle helmet visors. (I'll have a thorough read later if I get the time)

Windscreen is defined in the rules as follows:


Windscreen
means all glazing extending across the front of the vehicle that is not parallel to the vehicle’s longitudinal centre-line; but does not include a wind deflector.

I'd be making a few phone calls today if I were you.

[The Stranger]

VISOR WITH LESS THAN 35% TINT.

Um my visor is clear and thus I would have thought less than 35% tint too.
I'm confused.

I would have thought it worth a fight, as Motu says winding a window down does not get around the problem in a car, but are sunglasses legal?

Surely the issues with a car is that at times you will have the window up AND it is the car that is warranted, not the driver.

In this case the visor is actually optional thus like sunglasses may be used or not AND the bike is warranted not the rider and his/her optional accessories.

The fact that it wasn't in use at the time then begs the question, what if you had a tinted visor about your person, say in your tank bag? Again it is not in use, but capable of being used, can you be ticketed for this?

The cop is a jerk. Must have been short of quota (sorry performance indicator) for the day.

[MacD]

Well thats what I checked last night was if the visor was at all glazed ect but it wasn't. I have a lot of time for the Police, but this guy was looking for a way to give me a ticket.

I also just rung the LTNZ and they say they have no rules relating to visors. They don't even care if you ride without one.

Yes, I completely agree. You must contest this ticket.

[T.W.R]

sounds as if the piggy was just being a wank to cause you grief & hassle because he couldn't really get you on anything solid. lodge a complaint, submit his number, cause him some grief!

[MacD]

Um my visor is clear and thus I would have thought less than 35% tint too.
I'm confused.



I wonder if the cop was too? The rule relates to minimum transmission levels, 35% for side windows, 70% for windscreens. In other words a maximum of 65% tint and 30% tint respectively.

There is so much wrong with this it's not even funny.

Check out the Scope of the Rule (http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/rules/glazing-windscreen-wipe-and-wash-and-mirrors-1999.html#12), it could potentially apply to the motorcycles windscreens (that's interesting in itself - depends on what a wind deflector is) but extending it to a helmet visor I would suggest clearly exceeds the intended scope.

[Planet]

Take it to court all the way. How did he know the tint % of your visor? To stand up in court he would have to prove the reduction of light through your visor by measuring it, which I am sure he didnt do! As far as I am aware there are no restriction of tinted visor laws in NZ

[bugjuice]

that's a good one.. Should be in the halls for that.

A lot of visors give a tint percentage too, don't they? Could you find out if your visor is 35% or worse? Any worse and you'd might as well paint it black!

[Lou Girardin]

The first thing to do is check the regulations for window tinting and helmets specs. Particularly legal definitions of car windows and visors.
The second issue is how he measured the light transmission qualities of the visor.
Thirdly, the legality of the visor itself is irrelevant if you were not using it. (Most open face users do not have visors, they are not legally required.
Don't take this one up the jacksey.
Good luck

[Colapop]

That's just bizarre! I could see the point if it was dark or something and you had your visor down. But this guy (just had a bike run over his cat??!??) I dunno maybe he had a stressful day.....

Is this the sort of thing you can take up at the police station or do you have to f*ck around taking it through the courts and all the dicking around that this entails? Can you then invoice the police for loss of income? (for the time you wasted getting it sorted)

[Paul in NZ]

Well this sucks.... What an astonishing waste of time... From memory it's not even that dark in ChCh at 8:15 at the moment so the ticket writer was probably just out to discourage you from Manchester St which is in itself a bloody laugh.

For those of you that don't know ChCh Manchester street is where the most aggresive and ugliest prostitutes in NZ go to die... It's actually frightening (no I'm not making this up) to go down there in the evenings. (we had a site we had to visit for work down that way)

ChCh in the evenings is one of the scariest cities in NZ and I'm sooo grateful one of our finest is able to clean it up by issuing tickets for dark visors. What a bloody idiot.

Sniper. Go to court and fight it. I'll kick in some $$ for a lawyer OR I have a bloody good lawyer mate in ChCh (ex police) that will give you a deal. I'll pm you his details if you want?

Cheers

[MSTRS]

Sniper - that ticket is a crock of shit. Fight it all the way.

[FROSTY]

Sniper--Ill bet ya a chokkie fish on this one--the cop--He had a pommie accent diddnt he?? Go ask his senior whats this all about?
In the UK its against the law to have a dark tint visor and you get fined for it. Its the whole anti terrorist thing I think

[bugjuice]

lol.. yeah, cos the UK is just full of 'em...

[ManDownUnder]

Sniper--Ill bet ya a chokkie fish on this one--the cop--He had a pommie accent diddnt he?? Go ask his senior whats this all about?
In the UK its against the law to have a dark tint visor and you get fined for it. Its the whole anti terrorist thing I think

Surprised they're allowed to wear helmets at all in that case (having a go at the bureaucrats - not you FROSTY)
MDU

[jrandom]

interesting, and previous comments re. ticket being a crock should be right on the money.

laws relating to tinting specifically apply to the vehicle; your helmet is nothing to do with the vehicle. open and shut.

be interesting to see how this one pans out.

in the first instance I would simply write a letter back pointing out the inapplicability of whatever portion of the road regs applies to tinted windows. couch it in the right terms and there's a high likelihood that the ticket will be dropped.

[ManDownUnder]

lol.. yeah, cos the UK is just full of 'em...

course it is - just ask dubya

[James Deuce]

Sniper, get Paul's lawyer mate to help you write the letter. You'll probably pay him half the cost of the fine, BUT this is for all of us in a way.

reckon Frosty has a point too, and it may just be a new import's lack of understanding of local regs.

[crashe]

Fight it all the way......

If this copper is a UK import... Don't they go throu training here first before being let out on the streets... So surely they are made to learn ALL the NZ rules.

I would laminate the ticket and frame it... that is one ticket thats worth keeping.

[jrandom]

crashe makes a good point - remember tinted visors are a no-no in the UK, and you *can* get a ticket there for wearing them. copper boy could well be an import.

[Ixion]

The cop is out of line. IANAL, but I am very confident that there are NO laws in NZ regarding visors. The law about window tinting does NOT apply because a visor is not a window. Nor for that matter is a bike windscreen, it is a wind deflector and specifically excluded from windscreen rules.

Tinted windscreens and side windows are controlled by Land Transport Rule
Glazing, Windscreen Wipe and Wash, and Mirrors 1999 . This does not extend at all to motorcycle visors, and they cannot reasonably be imputed into it.

The actual rule is


2.2(1) The general safety requirements for glazing are:

* (a) glazing must be mechanically sound, strong and securely affixed to the vehicle; and
* (b) glazing must not be manufactured with, or modified to have, a mirrored effect sufficient to dazzle other road users; and
* (c) a windscreen, and front side windows (that is, glazing forward of the left or right of the driver’s seatback in its rearmost and upright position), must be kept clean and free of obstruction to ensure that the driver has sufficient vision through the glazing to operate the vehicle safely; and
* (d) a windscreen must not have scratches or other defects that unreasonably impair vision through the glazing or compromise the strength of the glazing; and
* (e) a laminated windscreen must not show signs of discoloration, and any overlays must not have any bubbling or other defects that could unreasonably impair vision through the glazing; and
* (f ) the overall visible light transmittance of a windscreen must not be less than 70%; and
* (g) the overall visible light transmittance of front side windows (that is, glazing forward of the left or right of the driver’s seatback in its rearmost and upright position) must not be less than 35%.


The only grounds available would be a general "vision obscured" charge (eg, like if you riding with a blindfold on, or with a big object on the tank blocking your vision

Riding at night with a tinted visor may be unwise. But it is not up to a cop to manufacture laws. If tinted visors need to be forbidden or controlled, that is up to Parliament (or, at least, the responsible Minsiter via a Road Rule)

[Postie]

sniper, you don't necessarily need to get a lawyer to write your letter to the police, you should be able to get enough info from what everyone has posted on this thread so far. you can write a letter to the address on the back of the ticket and explain the situation and that the cop needs a slap and you are not paying the ticket. They will write back to you and either drop the ticket and not issue and apology, or they will ask you to pay the ticket and give you an extended time to pay it. In the unlikely event that they think you should pay the extra tax to Helen (Pretty girl) Clark, then seek legal advice. I've had heaps of tickets and after writing in, I’ve got of at least half and they were legit fines too.

[Paul in NZ]

Boys and girls... All admirable seniments but seriously...

We should be prepared to help a brother out with a few $$ to fight this lest a precident be set and we all suffer. I'll pledge $100 to the fund right now and more if required later.

The reason. I wear perscription glasses and love my tinted visor. On tour I carry my clear in case we are caught out but a couple of times I've ridden home from the ferry (50km) with it up 'cos I forgot to change it. No big deal.

In my opinion, this sort of stuff is a stupid waste of police time and as someone pointed out another liberty we loose. These sad pricks won't be happy until all the fun is gone... stuff this... fight the bastards.

Paul N

[Sniper]

Right! I just went down to the Cop Shop and asked to speak to the highest ranking officer who was able to do something about this and I managed to get ahold of a reall nice Senior Sergeant who listened to what I wanted to say and then asked if I minded if the cop who wrote the ticket would come in and listen.

To cut a long story short, the cop said he thought he knew of a law classing tinted visors as illegal. The SS kind of cut him to peices explaining that you cannot give tickets out for laws you "think" you know of. And also made the cop apologise to me which was a nice touch.

But I still need to write away to get off the ticket, but I have a nice note from the SS explaining a bit and also a note from the cop so its a definete.

Thanks to all of you for the support, just watch out for the made up laws.

[FROSTY]

guys ---the whole teaspoon of sugar pot of salt thing stands here.
DON'T go in beating ya chest demanding your "justice"
All you will do is piss the cops off and they can have LOOONG memories.
Better-send a letter or go into the local cop shop.
Have the specific info available but DON'T be a smartass
Hey if that doesn't work then step it up to the next stage.

[Sniper]

And also a separate note to all those offering help (You know who you are). I am greatly appriciative and very touched (in a good way).

I hope one day I can offer the same to you.

Stu

[M1CRO]

IMHO, the cop may have been a newbie and got it slightly wrong (and yes, it does happen from time-to-time).. Write in and that should be the end of it :niceone:

EDIT: Whoops.. Three minutes late, but looks as if I was right :whistle:

[Pixie]

To cut a long story short, the cop said he thought he knew of a law classing tinted visors as illegal. The SS kind of cut him to peices explaining that you cannot give tickets out for laws you "think" you know of. And also made the cop apologise to me which was a nice touch.


Great!!
A victory for the good guys

[Bren_chch]

wow thats a good one.... glad u got that mostly sorted! sheesh!!!!!

[Lou Girardin]

Now THAT would have been embarrassing, and worse is yet to come when it gets around the station.
I don't think Mr Wanky Copper will even be stopping bikers in future.

[Rashika]

awesome Sniper.
Trying to read this thread imbetween that work shit, and i tell ya I am impressed! :niceone:

Good on both of the cops for doing the right thing: at least now i wont be nervous about wearing my dang helmet either...not that i would wear it at night but 8pm at the mo aint even remotely dark! :headbang:

[Ixion]

Hah!. Well done!. A victory for the forces of light and justice. :niceone:

[Sniper]

Thanks guys. and Thanks to all of you who helped with the Pms and other things

[Colapop]

The end of this thread - the part about the SS, should go into Jokes and Humour! That's f*cking hilarious!
That's the good things about KB (that we all love) is that it's a place to beat our chests get some good advice and get the matter sorted in a clam and rational manner. Well done those people!

[Lias]

Now THAT would have been embarrassing, and worse is yet to come when it gets around the station.
I don't think Mr Wanky Copper will even be stopping bikers in future.

Or alternatively hes going to become a right wanker who hates bikers and pulls them over for any excuse.

[sunhuntin]

good to read you have a chance of getting off!! well done. :headbang:

[Silage]

Having just caught up with this thread I was going to add my "but what do I know..." Glad it is resolved Sniper. Man you got stung only a few days after getting the tinted visor - what's the chance. Bet lots have been using them for years and never a squeak or grunt.

Oh, and I would have offered to donate half the kingdom to help you fight this - but no need now!!

[Silage]

This seems to be a non-issue for tinted visors, but it does still seem to be open for those of us with tinted screens (attached to the bike) to be interpreted as windscreens. Will that mean they will also have to have wipers and washers? That would look odd - but an apropriate move by those who seem to like making up these rules.

Would be a little difficult for those with opaque wind deflectors/windscreens. How can you expect to see ahead when you are flat on the tank with your head on its side and only your bottom eye open? :spudwhat:

[Ixion]

Bike windscreens , in general, are not legally considered "windscreens" They are called wind deflectors, and all the stuff about wipers etc specifically excludes "wind deflectors".

[nadroj]

Sniper - Any chance you can scan the ticket & post it on a thread? We may be able to start a list of coppers too big for their boots to enable fellow bikers to defend themselves better.
Cheers

[Silage]

Bike windscreens , in general, are not legally considered "windscreens" They are called wind deflectors, and all the stuff about wipers etc specifically excludes "wind deflectors".

I only skimmed the link you posted Ix, but I did not see there that bike screens are specifically excluded, but Class LC (motorcycles) are required to comply with the "General requirements" and hence wipers, washers. Is there something specific in the regs?
--------------------------
BTW Sniper, it would be great if you could post a (suitably anonymous) scan of the ticket you got.
---------------------------
EDIT: Oooops too late.

[Sniper]

I'll try, but I won't say who its from. Just have to find a scanner.

[M1CRO]

I'll try, but I won't say who its from. Just have to find a scanner.

Send it to TVNZ or Channel 3.. What a hoot that would be! Here's a ticket I got cos the cop thought it "might" be an offence! :stupid:

[Grizz]

Sniper,

When I first read your post I thought you might have been taking the piss, I mean being charged for having (and not using) a tinted visor at night!!, but quickly realised you wern't.

Glad to hear that it looks like this is going to sort itself out in your favour, albeit that it has caused you much stress, inconvenience and time.

There seems to be a lot of posts lately that relate to either wierd infringements like this, or tickets being issued on the say so of other drivers, this is becoming a bit of a worry.

[Ixion]

I only skimmed the link you posted Ix, but I did not see there that bike screens are specifically excluded, but Class LC (motorcycles) are required to comply with the "General requirements" and hence wipers, washers. Is there something specific in the regs?
--------------------------
BTW Sniper, it would be great if you could post a (suitably anonymous) scan of the ticket you got.
---------------------------
EDIT: Oooops too late.

Easiest place is the WOF manual. (VIRM)



Note 1 Windscreen means all glazing extending across the front of the vehicle that is not
parallel to the vehicle’s centre-line but does not include a wind deflector.


and


Summary of legislation Reasons for rejection
Applicable legislation
• Land Transport Rule: Glazing, Windscreen Wipe
and Wash, and Mirrors 1999
Mandatory equipment
1. A vehicle of class LC or LD manufactured on or
after 1/1/2000 that is fitted with a windscreen
must have a windscreen wipe and wash system.
Permitted equipment
2. A vehicle may be fitted with a wash system when
this is not required.
<snipped>


And from the Road Rule


Section 4 Vehicle standards and other safety requirements for windscreen wipe systems and windscreen wash systems
4.1 Scope of this section

This section applies to windscreen wipe systems and windscreen wash systems in all motor vehicles that have windscreens.




And the table in the thumbnail

Long and short, the "blades" on ordinary motorcycles are considered "wind deflectors" not "windscreens".

Could maybe be a bike that had an actual windscreen (and I don't know what the distinction is ) - maybe a harley dresser or something .

[M1CRO]

Could maybe be a bike that had an actual windscreen (and I don't know what the distinction is ) - maybe a harley dresser or something .
My definition would be if you look through it when riding in a normal manner?

[Ixion]

Could be. Oddly I can't actually find a definition either for NZ legislation, or for OZ (from whence we "borrow" most of our stuff). Quite a lot of rules refer to "wind deflectors" , and there are definitions of "windscreens" which specifically exclude wind deflectors. But no definition of the latter.

I have a remembrance of the issue arising in the past with old sports cars that had little "monocle" screens.

Main thing here is the VIN inspection. Since bikes usually come with screens "built in" (as part of the fairing), and have been approved at the VIN stage without wipers etc, you can't be made to fit them later (Well, not without specific legislation).

It's amazing actually how many cops don't actually know what the rules are. And even, some WOF inspectors aren't familiar with their own VIR-M manual. In fact I encountered one who claimed never to have heard of it !

[MSTRS]

These bikes 'may' have windscreens, rather than deflectors??

[Patrick]

I only just read this now, and couldn't believe what I was reading...you did exactly what I was going to suggest, speak to SS and even the copper at the same time to resolve the issue, end of story. He should be able to write in on your behalf/phone in and sort it without putting you through more crap. He created the problem, his problem to sort, not yours. What a weird one. Even for tints, how did he measure it? I have a card for "cars" which you place on the inside of the tint and if you can't read the card from the outside, it is too dark. Easy. Bizarre one that one. Was he a Pom BTW?

[Sniper]

To answe everyones ques, yep he was a pom.

[Lou Girardin]

That explains it. He thought he was still over there.
I want to be pinged by him for speeding then - he'll be writing from 122 km/h.

[Coyote]

I don't get what you mean by '35% Tint'? Anyone care to explain?

[Sniper]

A car is not allowed to have its windows tinted by less than 35% tint. IE 35< is fine but below isnt

[Rashika]

A car is not allowed to have its windows tinted by less than 35% tint. IE 35< is fine but below isnt
actually it would be tinted by MORE than 35%, bearing in mind that a 100% tint would be solid black

But thats all by the by now.....
So how much was the fine Sniper??
And do ya think we should all do a drive by with our tinted visors down one night and see how many ultra white cops come running out to give us all ticket and then laugh at them....go on...it'd be a laugh!! :dodge:

[Coyote]

actually it would be tinted by MORE than 35%, bearing in mind that a 100% tint would be solid black
That's what confused me :confused:

[Rashika]

That's what confused me :confused:
The '35%' relates to how much light can be let through... 'minimum transmission' it was called in an earlier post -which explained it pretty well)

[Sniper]

So how much was the fine Sniper??
And do ya think we should all do a drive by with our tinted visors down one night and see how many ultra white cops come running out to give us all ticket and then laugh at them....go on...it'd be a laugh!! :dodge:

Yep, what Rashika said.

The fine was $200 with 25 demerits????? And Im up for going past that cop anytime.

[bugjuice]

actually it would be tinted by MORE than 35%, bearing in mind that a 100% tint would be solid black
I was led to believe that it's the amount of light that's let thru. So if 100% of light is put to the visor, it'd only let thru 35% of the light. The lower the number, the less light is let thru. So 10% is nearly black. 100% is clear..

[Ixion]

Law says



(f ) the overall visible light transmittance of a windscreen must not be less than 70%; and
* (g) the overall visible light transmittance of front side windows (that is, glazing forward of the left or right of the driver’s seatback in its rearmost and upright position) must not be less than 35%.


So the "balckness" of the windscreen can't be more than 30% of light blocked. Side windows 65% of light blocked.

[Rashika]

I was led to believe that it's the amount of light that's let thru. So if 100% of light is put to the visor, it'd only let thru 35% of the light. The lower the number, the less light is let thru. So 10% is nearly black. 100% is clear..
It is the amount of light let through :niceone:
....but a 35% TINTED object is a lot lighter than say a 70% tinted object (which would be twice as dark as the 35% object)

[Biff]

lol.. yeah, cos the UK is just full of 'em...

Was. Then I moved here.

What a bummer Sniper me ole China. Sounds like mr cop has missingturniped the rules. Fingers crossed.

[Sniper]

Thanks Biff and the rest of Yee.

I know its not over until I get the letter saying it is, so hopefully they will be good to me.

[bugjuice]

It is the amount of light let through :niceone:
....but a 35% TINTED object is a lot lighter than say a 70% tinted object (which would be twice as dark as the 35% object)
I thought it was the other way round.. cos a 70% tint would let thru 70% of light, where as a 35% would only let thru 35% (funny huh?) so the 35 would be darker than the 70

i'm gonna head down the local ricer shop and get me head around it..

[bugjuice]

No Rashika, Bugjuice is right (I luv him) blah blah.
:yeah:

vans (ambos and the like) don't have a legal requirement on the rear or sides of the van, since you can get pannel vans that have no windows. Where as passenger vehicles have a legal limit of 35% for the rear and sides, and I think it's a little higher number for the driver and front passenger windows, and then nothing but OE on the windscreen.. I think the front windows bit has been relaxed a little, but I remember clearly reading that somewhere..

[Rashika]

No Rashika, Bugjuice is right (dammit) I had a black Holden ute, that the side windows were 35% and the rear had 5% tint.. was almost jet black.
The Ambo's have 15%

100% lets in all the light. 70% is a standard front windscreen. 5% is as dark as it gets, nearly black. Any less, why bother having a winda.

ps, I couldnt see out of the back window at night for reversing, all I could see was the reflection of me noggin which sucked.

Hope this clears things up.
actually depends if you talking about 'tints' or 'tints'.... 35% tint is lighter that 70% tint in an ink world... but obviously has the opposite meaning in a windscreen world, trust them to fk it up :dodge: :niceone:
but we did all know what sniper meant tho eh?

[bugjuice]

actually depends if you talking about 'tints' or 'tints'.... 35% tint is lighter that 70% tint in an ink world... but obviously has the opposite meaning in a windscreen world, trust them to fk it up :dodge: :niceone:
but we did all know what sniper meant tho eh?
see that'd be talking logically, like we all are, and yes, you'd be right. But some brightspark decided that the rules are how much light it'll let pass, not the shade of black it is.. but I knew you were on the right track, just not quite with the lingo :niceone:

[bugjuice]

FFS is that clear now?
about 34% clear.. one more time for the hard of thinking may be?
so if my helmet visor is 33%, will I get stopped?

[SuperDave]

What a crock of shit man. And fuck the fact that the cop may be from UK or something, if he doesn't know the rules of NZ he should not have been let out by himself until he does.

Fight it man.

[MSTRS]

The percentage does not relate to the tint but to how much light is let through. It is a complicated formula. 35% is the lowest you can go for a normal car, except the front window which is 70% ( Standard manufactured into the windscreen) you cant put anything on the front except a sunstrip which may not protrude any further down than your sun visor, or a stone guard at the bottom for trucks, buses, and some rural vehicles which obtain an exemption.

On commercial vehicles, any windows from the B pillar back may have less than 35% tint, to no windows whatsoever.

FFS is that clear now?
The 'interpretation' of windowtint laws is always a problem, which is why I didn't get into applying the stuff. The glazing rules also cover 'tint' strips & stickers. Strictly interpreted, tint strips are allowed where they are transparent (ie - like the inbuilt tinted area in a laminated windscreen) but not if they are translucent (heavily reduced light admittance but can't see through them). The rule change in 1999 removed reference to 'overlays' and anything stuck to the glass (other than tint films) is considered a 'sticker'. Basically, on a vehicle intended for passenger use (MA class) these stickers may only be applied to the top or bottom 100mm of glass front and rear. Side windows cannot have stickers applied at all, except for the side windows in the tailgate of a stationwagon where the 100mm rule applies.

[R6_kid]

2.2(1) The general safety requirements for glazing are:

** (g) the overall visible light transmittance of front side windows (that is, glazing forward of the left or right of the driver’s seatback in its rearmost and upright position) must not be less than 35%.

hmmmm.... on a bike your seat back is
A) non-existent
B) at the height of your ass

SO... that would mean your helmet is vertical of that point.

Also the visor aint a part of the bike.

However if you are talking about windscreens/blades then i'd like to know what the rule is. The only thing i can think of would be the BMW C1 or say a goldwing, where the windscreen comes up to face height.

[avgas]

Sniper--Ill bet ya a chokkie fish on this one--the cop--He had a pommie accent diddnt he?? Go ask his senior whats this all about?
In the UK its against the law to have a dark tint visor and you get fined for it. Its the whole anti terrorist thing I think
Also bank robberies etc
Snipe the ticket is bS , complain all the way

[WINJA]

I TAKE IT THERES NO CRIME IN CHRISTCHURCH SO HES FINDING STUFF TO DO , FUCK I HATE COPS , HOPEFULLY HE DOES THE SAME TO SOME NUTTER AND GETS HIS FACE KICKED IN, I SAW A PIG IN AUCKS WITH THE DARKEST VISOR IVE EVER SEEN AND IT WAS DARK

[crashe]

Before anyone else says to Sniper to fight the charges....

Please all go back to page 3 and read post 33......

Thanks.

:wavey: :wavey:

[marty]

I TAKE IT THERES NO CRIME IN CHRISTCHURCH SO HES FINDING STUFF TO DO , FUCK I HATE COPS , HOPEFULLY HE DOES THE SAME TO SOME NUTTER AND GETS HIS FACE KICKED IN, I SAW A PIG IN AUCKS WITH THE DARKEST VISOR IVE EVER SEEN AND IT WAS DARK

i'm pretty sure the cops hate you too winja, so i guess you're all square, and now you can shut the fuck up.

[Macktheknife]

Hey sniper,
I knew exactily how to help you sort this one but I see I got here to late to be any use and you need my advice like a fish needs a bicycle! That said tho... glad you got it sorted! good luck

[Phenoix]

Glad you got it sorted so quickly.
Tho waiting for the sacnned image so we can all point an laugh.
Good to know lots of advise is offered on the site tho

[spudchucka]

To cut a long story short, the cop said he thought he knew of a law classing tinted visors as illegal. The SS kind of cut him to peices explaining that you cannot give tickets out for laws you "think" you know of. And also made the cop apologise to me which was a nice touch.
There's a good lesson for him.

[inlinefour]

Bad luck. Seems so wrong, but I have no idea what the law says :spudwhat:

Is something new to me, did not even have this problem in the UK. Hopefully a local ploddie can shed some light if not allready?

[Grumpy]

I'll pledge $100 to the fund right now and more if required later.
Paul N
I've only just caught up with this story so bear with me if you could folks.
A little off topic so I'll appoligise now but just a quick comment on Paul in NZ's offer... OUTSTANDING! All credit to you mate. This is why I love been a part of the motorcycling fraternity and am proud to be part of Kiwi Biker. There's been a fair bit of shit lately on the site but then I read this and I think this is what it's all about. Way to go Paul N.

[Swoop]

Well done Sniper!
I believed that the interpretation of the rule was that both cage drivers had to be able to see each others faces at intersections...
The back windows could be as dark as you want - SO taking things to a totally illogical conclusion would mean a rider would have the clear visor and the pillion would be allowed the tinted one!!!:rofl: :rofl: :weird:

[Sniper]

Thanks for all the support guys.

I got pulled up last night by the same cop who gave me the ticket. Wasn't speeding or anything but he really wanted to do me for something. Took 17.54 minutes before I could go on my way again. I think the threat of a harresment charge made him go away.

[Ghost Lemur]

Thanks for all the support guys.

I got pulled up last night by the same cop who gave me the ticket. Wasn't speeding or anything but he really wanted to do me for something. Took 17.54 minutes before I could go on my way again. I think the threat of a harresment charge made him go away.

Lay a complain anyway. If he continues it then you have the evidence to back up that it's an on going thing.

Sounds like he's got a bit of a thing against you for the mistake he made and dressing down he must have got from his superior.

[Sniper]

Ive read too much of the BOFH to just go down without a fight.

[spudchucka]

Thanks for all the support guys.

I got pulled up last night by the same cop who gave me the ticket. Wasn't speeding or anything but he really wanted to do me for something. Took 17.54 minutes before I could go on my way again. I think the threat of a harresment charge made him go away.
Being pulled over regularly by the same cop and never issued a ticket can certainly add up to harrassment. If you are getting legitimate tickets each time then you can't really claim harrasment, (not saying thats happening here).

[Virago]

Thanks for all the support guys.

I got pulled up last night by the same cop who gave me the ticket. Wasn't speeding or anything but he really wanted to do me for something. Took 17.54 minutes before I could go on my way again. I think the threat of a harresment charge made him go away.
Jeez mate, you are definately being "targetted"!

To hold you up for 17.54 minutes, when he had nothing to charge you with, sounds like pure harrassment to me.

I'd be straight back to the station to see that senior officer again, this time without the guy in the room.

Don't let it go mate. Good luck.

[Rashika]

geez i cant believe he pulled you up again?? Did he not get it last time?
I mean what could possibly have changed on your bike for last week to this week...you didn't suddenly have no WOF or reg....same helmet i presume?

maybe he is just a pommy asshole? ...and I am allowed to say that cos I am half pom

[Biff]

maybe he is just a pommy asshole? ...and I am allowed to say that cos I am half pom Arsehole would suffice. Unless he had a beard, in which case he would be a bearded arsehole.

[Rashika]

Arsehole would suffice. Unless he had a beard, in which case he would be a bearded arsehole.
nah ....has to have the pom in there somewhere... :lol:

ya welsh g_t :Punk:

[Biff]

ya welsh g_t That bloody dangerous wannaby chap is having a bad influence on you lady. And I'm not a goat.

[Rashika]

That bloody dangerous wannaby chap is having a bad influence on you lady. And I'm not a goat.
:2thumbsup yeah he is bad aint he? :devil2: very VERY bad :devil2:

and ya wasn't a goat, it was only missing one letter

[polykarbonate]

Karma, THats all it was man.

What happend was you were too worried about me and my exemption letter.

lol.

ONLY JOKING.

sucks to hear about your ticket, ive got a tinted visor too.

I guess its only a matter of time before i get pulled up for nothing obvious meaning the cop will have to get inventive with a ticket.

It sucks that cops are this petty.

Why can't they all be like the kind that just flash there lights as warning rather than fine, these kind of cops are cool.


After all most bigger bikes go faster than 100k while still in first gear, What are the other 5 for?

RIde on.

[Sniper]

Now Im pissed. Same cop pulled me up this morning at 6:15 this morning on my small wake up ride on the motorway. Same story in that he wanted to know why a 21 year old is out of bed at 6am ect ect.

Anyway, I rode off after 30 mins with a ticket for an uncertified exhaust. Is that a ticketable offence?

[DemonWolf]

holy moley.. 30mins standing there.. while he's checking your precious>??

[juzzer]

Shit fella, sounds like this dude want's to turn you into his *Special* play thing..... :blip:

[Paul in NZ]

Now Im pissed. Same cop pulled me up this morning at 6:15 this morning on my small wake up ride on the motorway. Same story in that he wanted to know why a 21 year old is out of bed at 6am ect ect.


Anyway, I rode off after 30 mins with a ticket for an uncertified exhaust. Is that a ticketable offence?

OK.. This is just plain getting out of hand .... This guy is pushing your buttons, probably in the hope that you will make a threat or do something really stupid and then you will get jumped all over.

1# edit your post above NOW.... Not the time for pushing back!

2# I've sent you a PM with a contact at a law firm. CALL him now, go see him and tell him the whole story. He will advise you on what to do! Follow his advice he is a good guy OK!

3# I stand by my offer to help with any fees.

Stu. Get this sorted PROPERLY mate. Do NOT offer violence or payback or resistence no matter what the provocation. At this stage you will have the law on your side, once you step over the line.. It's you against them... Don't get sucked in!

Cheers

[Fluffy Cat]

Just saw this thread and straight away thought POM police officer.
The UK has lots and lots of laws so glad i came to NZ.
Good on you.

[Ixion]

..

Anyway, I rode off after 30 mins with a ticket for an uncertified exhaust. Is that a ticketable offence?


Nope . More pommy stuff. There, aftermarket zorsts have to be certified. Lots of angst about this in Pommylnd.No such requirment here. Just have to be "no louder than original fitment". He's given you another ticket for a non existent offence.

What Mr Paul_in_NZ said. And call to his sergeant, nd the Police complaints authority. I would think thast although the PC will whitewsh it (they alwys do) at least he won't be game to keep harassing you once they're in the picture.

[sAsLEX]

good to see the pommy imports are working real well, maybe he missed the intro to new zealand law class

good luck with nailing the SOB to a lamp post

[onearmedbandit]

Fuck Stu, I thought this was all sorted and the thread was just going on its own way. This is out of hand now, if there is anything I can do to help as well let me know.

[Virago]

If it's the same exhaust system you had the last two times he pulled you, it's obvious he's getting desperate to get back at you for getting his arse kicked.

How is he always tracking you down like this? It sounds like he could be stalking you:blink: .

You need to go back and see the Senior Sergeant ASAP.

[Rashika]

yep...ditto what Paul in NZ said!
This is just pathetic on his part...
and if the wee dick decides to keep doing it (tho why he is, is beyond me??!!), maybe a little chat to the local media could be next.

[Dadpole]

I second what Rashika says. Let then know that media involvement is looming. The story that the local law are handing out fines for non-existant offences IS news.

[sAsLEX]

The story that the local law are handing out fines for non-existant offences IS news.

especially since they are being charged for foreign laws broken by the governments grand solution to our lack of cops, imported bobbys

[Paul in NZ]

Going to the media is the LAST resort.

Attacking policy and the Police in general will result in a closing of ranks and a you against them situation UNTIL you win in court and then most likely the offending officer will be spat out and blamed for every thing while you will still get stopped repeatedly...

A nice quiet little letter from a court savvy lawyer to his local bosses will be appreciated and will most likely be effective. The issue can be dealt with locally and quietly.

Don't escalate this unless you have to. They have more resources if it comes to a shit fight....

Cheers

[Sniper]

especially since they are being charged for foreign laws broken by the governments grand solution to our lack of cops, imported bobbys
Thanks for all the advice guys. Im not too keen on heading off and making this a story for the newspapers. I just want to get this monkey off my back.

Thanks for the advice Paul. I might ring that guy later..

[Marmoot]

if your helmet visor is your vehicle windscreen, then you should get done for not having a back window when you are not being a van or truck.

If your helmet visor is NOT your vehicle windscreen, there should not be any limitation on tints, just like the case with sunglasses.

So in these respects, officer, what is the problem?

[Rashika]

Thanks for all the advice guys. Im not too keen on heading off and making this a story for the newspapers. I just want to get this monkey off my back.

Thanks for the advice Paul. I might ring that guy later..
yeah a very last resort only true :doh:
....you gota go see the SS again, this guy shouldn't be working here if he cant get the laws right

[spudchucka]

Now Im pissed. Same cop pulled me up this morning at 6:15 this morning on my small wake up ride on the motorway. Same story in that he wanted to know why a 21 year old is out of bed at 6am ect ect.

Anyway, I rode off after 30 mins with a ticket for an uncertified exhaust. Is that a ticketable offence?
Get back to the station and see the same senior sergeant. This cop is being a arsewipe.

[Aaron]

That outright sucks Stu, you're a more patient man than I to not go off your nut at him. He's pulled you over twice already and not picked you up for the exhaust, that's gotta be an argument already for this latest charge being more harassment than you breaking the law.

Admittedly you do have a loud exhaust (or did when I last rode with you), but we don't (might be wrong here) have noise emission testing at the moment for bikes so he can't ping you for that. You said earlier that the bike was warranted so it is then by definition road legal.

What station does he work out of? I know a few Chch officers, would be interesting to see what this guy is thought of in the city. PM if you know his name.

This is what makes me laugh. My mate and I both applied for the police a few years back, were both denied because we weren't female, Maori or pacific islanders. Now my mate is a cop in Skipton (UK) and loving it, while they import feckers from over there because they cannot get enough recruits here to do the job. The govenment is so preocupied in getting the demographics right they're digging themselves into a bloody deep hole. Fucking joke.

[Paul in NZ]

Thanks for all the advice guys. Im not too keen on heading off and making this a story for the newspapers. I just want to get this monkey off my back.

Thanks for the advice Paul. I might ring that guy later..

I've already talked to Al about it mate. He is expecting a call and I think you will find his advice helpful. Best of all he is an ex cop, knows how it works etc and is an independant witness should anything else happen in the next few days. ie not a fired up angry biker.

Please call him. His advice will be sound I'm sure.

Cheers

ps My understanding of the noisey exhaust thing is.... If he believed it was noisey and you were deliberately causing a problem with it, he could have pink stickered you and that would invalidate your wof.

The law is changing... It's nearly time to hang up your crash helmet but not quite yet

[Divot]

BAd Rap Sniper. Fo every one here is the ltsa website with wof regs
http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/publications/vir-manual/index.html

Any more bum tickets ask the cop for the precident code and pm me

[Rashika]

still 3 to go...thought you woulda done it by now... :2thumbsup
so whats the goss with this thread? any more info yet?

[Sniper]

I will go see my favourite senior sergeant today and if he cant get this guy to pull his head in then I will consult the lawer Paul_in_NZ recommended.

[Rashika]

Good stuff!!

and congrats on the 6thou :2thumbsup :rockon:

[Sniper]

Thanks and Thanks

[NC]

What about the bike shop that sold you the visor? The should have some importing procedures reguarding the importation of illegaly tinted visors?

[Sniper]

What about the bike shop that sold you the visor? The should have some importing procedures reguarding the importation of illegaly tinted visors?

They were pretty good about it. The offered to back me up if it went to court ect and even offered to supply me a new helmet with a new visor for free if I was charged.

[NC]

They were pretty good about it. The offered to back me up if it went to court ect and even offered to supply me a new helmet with a new visor for free if I was charged.
Aww that bloody good of them :)

[Sniper]

Aww that bloody good of them :)
Yep.


As per the ticket with the exhaust. The SS (Same guy) and I and the Plod had a wee chat for an hour, coming to the conclusion that unless I am ridinging on the back wheel with a rifle in one hand and molitov on the other screaming "Die all you mother fuckers, die", Mr Plod is not allowed to pull me over and if he does, there shall be a wee inquest held and there may be a wee leak to the media ect.

Nice guy the SS, giving me ideas. Thanks for the help Paul.

[Rashika]

Yep.


As per the ticket with the exhaust. The SS (Same guy) and I and the Plod had a wee chat for an hour, coming to the conclusion that unless I am ridinging on the back wheel with a rifle in one hand and molitov on the other screaming "Die all you mother fuckers, die", Mr Plod is not allowed to pull me over and if he does, there shall be a wee inquest held and there may be a wee leak to the media ect.

Nice guy the SS, giving me ideas. Thanks for the help Paul.
man that is music to my ears! :2thumbsup :rockon: :2thumbsup

[Drunken Monkey]

Good news. Could work in your favour if he ever tries to write you a speeding ticket ;)

[DemonWolf]

So any ideas why this guy had it in for you???

[Sniper]

So any ideas why this guy had it in for you???


SPS (Small penis syndrome)

[Dadpole]

You lucky sod. now follow the Plod in question around doing your "Die all you mother fuckers" act. Don't forget to post the vid. (PT)

[scumdog]

The first thing to do is check the regulations for window tinting and helmets specs. Particularly legal definitions of car windows and visors.
The second issue is how he measured the light transmission qualities of the visor.
Thirdly, the legality of the visor itself is irrelevant if you were not using it. (Most open face users do not have visors, they are not legally required.
Don't take this one up the jacksey.
Good luck

Lou took the words out of my mouth - what scientific method did he use to determine the percentage of light transmission? (on a visor that was not being used)
The kind of crap that makes the rest of us look bad eh!

Don't pay the ticket, ask for disclosure, contact the LTSA (or whatever they're calling themselves this week) and ask them what is the maximum tint for VISORS and ask how it is measured at the side of the road - in darkness.

Are you sure this is not a wind-up?????

(oops, posted the above before reading the WHOLE thread, dang! )

[scumdog]

Have you ever thought the guy might just have fancied you and was just trying to pick you up?:blip: :blip:

[James Deuce]

Have you ever thought the guy might just have fancied you and was just trying to pick you up?:blip: :blip:
Naaah. He's Sth African.

Pleased it worked out Sniper. Bet that guy wishes he'd read the "manual".

[spudchucka]

Yep.


As per the ticket with the exhaust. The SS (Same guy) and I and the Plod had a wee chat for an hour, coming to the conclusion that unless I am ridinging on the back wheel with a rifle in one hand and molitov on the other screaming "Die all you mother fuckers, die", Mr Plod is not allowed to pull me over and if he does, there shall be a wee inquest held and there may be a wee leak to the media ect.

Nice guy the SS, giving me ideas. Thanks for the help Paul.
Good job. The guy would have got some severe "counselling" in private once you left the room. Hopefully thats the last time you see that idiot.

[Lou Girardin]

So any ideas why this guy had it in for you???

He was made to look an idiot after their first meeting?
If the cops are going to use imports, why don't they train them in our laws?
This tosser is applying UK regs.

[marty]

i think we had established that one lou

[Sniper]

Naaah. He's Sth African.


And since when are South Africans not sexually attractive?:blip:

[James Deuce]

And since when are South Africans not sexually attractive?:blip:

Since the Dutch started sending their detritus there, and the Zulus, Bantus, and Hottentots got kicked out of central Africa.

[Sniper]

Since the Dutch started sending their detritus there, and the Zulus, Bantus, and Hottentots got kicked out of central Africa.

Point taken :lol:

Although I am from scottish decent

[Swoop]

Yep.


As per the ticket with the exhaust. The SS (Same guy) and I and the Plod had a wee chat for an hour, coming to the conclusion that unless I am ridinging on the back wheel with a rifle in one hand and molitov on the other screaming "Die all you mother fuckers, die", Mr Plod is not allowed to pull me over and if he does, there shall be a wee inquest held and there may be a wee leak to the media ect.

Nice guy the SS, giving me ideas. Thanks for the help Paul.

Bloody excellent result Sniper! :clap::woohoo: I gather that they completely withdrew the "charges" laid...
And I hope the SS explained HOW to be up on one wheel with rifle and molotov???? Stuffed if I can work out how it's done, especially since I ride like a nana:rofl:

[polykarbonate]

thats right, im selling up.

call 0274645275 to make offer.

[spudchucka]

Resurecting 7 month old threads in order to advertise a bike for sale??:gob:

[James Deuce]

I'm getting out the spanking paddle.

[Sniper]

What in Gods good name have you been smoking? :weird:

What you selling and for how much?

[yungatart]

thats right, im selling up.

call 0274645275 to make offer.
This is just wrong!! What you been smokin' dude?

[Virago]

:killingme :killingme :killingme

Some thread hijacks are irritating. This one is so audacious it's hilarious!

:killingme :killingme :killingme

[MattRSK]

haha I just read that whole thread without realising it was 7 months old. What a dumbass.

[nadroj]

thats right, im selling up.

call 0274645275 to make offer.


Which one?

[Sniper]

haha I just read that whole thread without realising it was 7 months old. What a dumbass.

At least you didnt offer up your bike for sale at the end of it

[Quartida]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Virago]

Hang on, Sniper, there may be more to this than meets the eye.

Perhaps he carefully selected a thread started by someone who obviously needs to buy a bike? :blip:

[Sniper]

Hang on, Sniper, there may be more to this than meets the eye.

Perhaps he carefully selected a thread started by someone who obviously needs to buy a bike? :blip:

Here we go, picking on the disabled guy. Just cause I dont have a bit doesnt make me special ya know.... I know I have problems attracting police, but the doctor said in a couple years I'll get over it

pt

[scumdog]

Here we go, picking on the disabled guy. Just cause I dont have a bit doesnt make me special ya know.... I know I have problems attracting police, but the doctor said in a couple years I'll get over it
pt

With your face looking like a baboons arse you'll NEVER attract this one!!:nya:

[Sniper]

With your face looking like a baboons arse you'll NEVER attract this one!!:nya:

Thats not nice................. Its glandular, I cant help it :nya:

[9cents]

Bah! It was interesting, but I just read that whole thread thinking "OMG this is old, surely the cop isn't still picking on poor old sniper?" :mellow:
...maybe the hijacker is the now infamous pommy cop going for some e-harrasment :shutup:

[Speedracer]

haha I just read that whole thread without realising it was 7 months old. What a dumbass.

lol me too

Hadn't read it before though... a good read. :rockon:

[paturoa]

dont want read whole thing - wot happened re visor?

[Sniper]

I got off it. Needed help from a few people though.

[bluninja]

8000+ new posts to read and I end up reading all through this one ! Duh!

Well 7999 left

[Hawkeye]

Or alternatively hes going to become a right wanker who hates bikers and pulls them over for any excuse. And he did!


I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought this way!
:devil2:

Shite, just got to the second last page of this to realise it's 7 month old.