PDA

View Full Version : Damn Damn Damn Damn



riffer
26th February 2004, 10:28
Damn the bastards!

I lose 35 demerits yesterday and what happens - sprung on the way to work.

Cop delights in telling me he has good news and bad news.

Well sir, you had 35 demerits come off on the 25th of February, but I'm afraid at the speed you were going I can't let you off the ticket.

Damn. Damn. Damn. Back up to 90 points again.
:argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh:

bungbung
26th February 2004, 10:40
Dude! thats gay

James Deuce
26th February 2004, 10:47
Dagnabit! :no:

riffer
26th February 2004, 11:00
Yeah watch out for those dodgy buggers. Hidden cop with laser on the ocean side just past Ngauranga off-ramp, notifying HP waiting to pull me over. Didn't even see the guy with the laser, until I go past the cop and he puts his lights on.

Lou Girardin
26th February 2004, 11:08
Yeah what out for those dodgy buggers. Hidden cop with laser on the ocean side just past Ngauranga off-ramp, notifying HP waiting to pull me over. Didn't even see the guy with the laser, until I go past the cop and he puts his lights on.

Buy a jammer.
If you live in Wellington, BUY A JAMMER!
Lou

Blink
26th February 2004, 12:23
gutted :<

"i dont think i was going that fast officer, can i see the laser readout ?" hehe

jrandom
26th February 2004, 12:42
Oh, *fark*. Sympathies.

Life sucks sometimes, dunnit?

matthewt
26th February 2004, 12:55
gutted :<

"i dont think i was going that fast officer, can i see the laser readout ?" hehe

I asked to see the laser readout when I got done for 125 in a 70 (28 day suspension) and was told that the laser would of been reset by now and they didn't have to show it to me anyway. Judge, Jury and Executioner.

Wenier
26th February 2004, 13:03
I think they have to show you your speed on the laser or radar if you ask, it is there own fault if they reset it.

Might need someone who knows the law on this to tells us what the deal is.

Bad luck celticno6. Might need to buy a jammer then :)

750Y
26th February 2004, 13:11
firstly: commiserations Celtic.
secondly: what jammer Lou?

riffer
26th February 2004, 13:12
Oh, *fark*. Sympathies.

Life sucks sometimes, dunnit?
Yeah but on the plus side my wife said "Oh you poor thing... that's life I guess - can I make it up to you tonight when you get home..." when I told her about it.

... so not in trouble at home over it!!! :2thumbsup

matthewt
26th February 2004, 13:22
firstly: commiserations Celtic.
secondly: what jammer Lou?

You can buy laser jammers. Not sure what the bike ones are like but the car ones go for approx $800. My friend put one in his new HSV and watched with amusement as a cop in Auckland looked into the laser gun with a puzzled expression after 5 attempts to get a lock on his HSV. The car jammers tell you when it detects a "Hit" so that you can slow down and let them lock on at a slower speed (he didn't slow down for the fun of it).

Blink
26th February 2004, 13:35
so are jammers legal ?

matthewt
26th February 2004, 13:41
so are jammers legal ?

Laser jammers are still legal, radar jammers are a big no-no (I think because they are radar transmitters and you need a license for that).

MrMelon
26th February 2004, 14:11
http://blinder.dk

One of the dudes here tested a couple of them in his car and reckons they did the trick nicely :D

jrandom
26th February 2004, 14:28
Laser jammers are still legal, radar jammers are a big no-no (I think because they are radar transmitters and you need a license for that).

Mmmm hmmm. Apart from the defined 'open slather' regions of the electromagnetic spectrum (microwave, etc, in the 1-2GHz range or thereabouts, the CB band, and I forget what else) and stuff that falls right outside the guidelines, you generally get in Big Trouble (tm) in most parts of the Civilised World (tm) for emitting EM radiation over a certain power level without a license from a controlling body (ie, the FCC in the US, etc). That's what all the spectrum slice auction madness is about every so often when a new application arrives using new bandwidth and the gummint jumps on it to make more money.

Chappie with a PhD in radio physics works not too far away from me here so I should really have a watercooler conversation sometime about it I suppose. I'm really not sure what the technical guff is on ranging radars but presumably if you had a license to operate one you'd effectively have a license to operate a jammer although the power output required would probably be significantly different between usable ranging/location radar and jamming applications, so that might affect it.

AFAIK nobody anywhere has been silly enough to try regulating radiation in the visible wavelengths under these type of laws, so if you want to outlaw laser jammers you can't get 'em under the good old EM spectrum reg stuff, you have to outlaw 'jammers' specifically and then people will try and get out of it by claiming it's a flashlight or something. Difficult.

Wenier
26th February 2004, 15:04
hey guys i think you'll find that laser jammers are illegal and are $900 for 2 thats one on the front of ur bike and one at the back it also comes with a switch to turn it off when u have slowed down to the speed limit.

as i understand the holden company offers jammers to hsv owners as part of the car for a bit extra cash.

If u want more info on them check out this page, it is a NZ company who will sell them but doesnt condone the use of them

http://www.radardirect.co.nz/index2.html

Big Dog
26th February 2004, 15:47
You could try a little restraint :lol:
Ps never been ticketed on a bike.
I have been pulled a few times but then my 'jammer goes' into action with its patented turbo powered mouth. Granted in the last two years I don't ride as fast as JR etc, but I've always been very selective about where I speed, how much I look like a squid & have a novel grovel rehearsed. eg "a prick back there in the white commodore ran me off the road" and just hope there is a white commodore coming.

Lou Girardin
26th February 2004, 16:05
I use an older unit, a Masterblaster. I've tested it on a Stalker and it works fine. Unlike large cars, bikes don't need the coverage of twin units. I don't use a rear unit because cops seldom seem to shoot from behind. (Don't know about their personal lives though).
I've been zapped so many times, that if they were illegal, some pissed off cop would have done me by now.
Lou

MD
26th February 2004, 17:51
Celtic- just checking. Were you heading sth on the M/way past Ngauranga Gorge from Petone or was the prick somewhere else? (its my daily commute aswell, need to know) MatthewT- see you have a Brutale now. Sorry to see your F4 in a sad state out the back of Motormart last week. Good you are back on ya bike
Mark D

wkid_one
26th February 2004, 17:55
Again - they are technically illegal as they 'interfere with Vehicle Surveillance Equipment' which is a breach of the LT Act. Catching you using one is a different story.

DEATH_INC.
26th February 2004, 18:00
Just out of interest,one of the boys onthe ZX12 site did a bit of a test and discovered that on the 12 at least,the only bit that gave a reading was when the laser was pointed at the headlight.....he worked in some sort of scientific research place and they were working on some sort of uni-directional covering for it,but I'm not sure how they went....

riffer
26th February 2004, 18:52
Celtic- just checking. Were you heading sth on the M/way past Ngauranga Gorge from Petone or was the prick somewhere else? (its my daily commute aswell, need to know) MatthewT- see you have a Brutale now. Sorry to see your F4 in a sad state out the back of Motormart last week. Good you are back on ya bike
Mark DI was heading south at 9.40 this morning past Ngauranga Gorge where the flyover comes in - I was coming from the Hutt Valley - cop was on the side of the road (left) in the push bikes lane.

I guess I should be thankful though as when he clocked me I was technically "sharing" the lane with another car as I came down the road from the small crest.

Deano
26th February 2004, 18:54
They have always taken great delight in showing me the bloody reading - F**k em all.

If they are able to produce quantitative evidence, then they should, your honour.

Jackrat
26th February 2004, 18:59
Jammers are not illegal but their use is,Work that out.
The use of anything that interfears with the operation of police speed detection equipment is illegal.With the NZ Gov'ts close following of South OZ
trends it is probably only a matter of time before both detectors and jammers are made illegal,and then you will have blown your money,It depends on how much real time use you get out of them before it happens I suppose.

Big Dog
26th February 2004, 19:01
How cool would it be if they had to print out your ticket direct from the gun. There would be no question then, on the other hand there would be no leniency either.

dangerous
26th February 2004, 19:05
I've done a bit of serching on this one and if I had a spare $900 then I'd sertenly have a 'Blinder' laser jamer.

I think that you will find that they do not send a signal of any kind, what they do is obsorb the laser signal instead of returning it to the gun, with your speed. As far as I know they are not illegal or you would not be able to sell them.

I use a Passport radar detecter which also picks up laser, but you must remember that once you have detected the threat you are allready busted.
Over xmas I detected 4 strikes but was not speeding (much) so the chance of being done is high.

I watched these money grabing bastards outside work the other day, operating a laser gun and would you believe there were 8 cops and 5 cars involved, thats a shit load of my taxes being spent on wages that would be better off in the health, schools or even reagular cops wages.

There will soon be a new product out caled 'Viel' it is a clear lacure that you paint on to your number plate and lights. This also obsorbs the Lidear laser light rather than reflect it back to were it came. you can see this product at Radar Direct's web site.

Big Dog
26th February 2004, 19:12
Lets play total the speeding fines $180 (3x 60-in a-50 speed camera in a tin top) anyone on this thread lower. Me thinks the $900 is better spent on petrol/gear, in my case any way.

It's kind of funny coz I speed more on the bike but get busted less.

Lou Girardin
26th February 2004, 19:32
Again - they are technically illegal as they 'interfere with Vehicle Surveillance Equipment' which is a breach of the LT Act. Catching you using one is a different story.

That may or may not be so. But I've never known a cop not to use the law to nail 'smart arses' if they can. Something is stopping them.
Lou

dangerous
26th February 2004, 20:59
Lets play total the speeding fines $180 (3x 60-in a-50 speed camera in a tin top) anyone on this thread lower. Me thinks the $900 is better spent on petrol/gear, in my case any way.

For me its not only about fines but drive buy points (demerits) as I often drive trucks I need my licence so $1200 on a detecter was worth it and I recon in the year I've had it its saved me that much.

This time last year I was walking (well ment to be) for three months due to demerits adding up. I have not had a ticket since then. In the first 2 months of last year I was nicked 3 times and 2 times earler the year before.

Now I'm not a nut case or any thing cos they were all in a 100k zone and for no more than 11-17 km over apart from 1 towing the boat at 102kph (laser gun @ 10pm)

marty
26th February 2004, 21:13
demerits accumulate, and stay attached to your licence until you are demerit ticket free for 2 years. for instance, if you are on 50 demerits, and have been for 23 months 28 days, then you get a ticket with 35 demerits on it tomorrow, you will be on 85 demerits until 26th feb 2006.

dangerous
26th February 2004, 21:30
demerits accumulate, and stay attached to your licence until you are demerit ticket free for 2 years. for instance, if you are on 50 demerits, and have been for 23 months 28 days, then you get a ticket with 35 demerits on it tomorrow, you will be on 85 demerits until 26th feb 2006.

SINCE WHEN

marty
26th February 2004, 21:32
that's always been my understanding of how it worked. i will try and find the legislation. if i can't, then i've learnt something. if i do, then you have.

marty
26th February 2004, 21:41
here it is.
.................................................. .................................................. ..
Land Transport Act 1998

91.Cancellation and reinstatement of demerit points—


(1)When 2 years have elapsed since the commission of an offence in respect of which demerit points were recorded, the entry of the points made in respect of that offence ceases to have effect in relation to the person who committed that offence; but if demerit points were recorded in respect of 2 or more offences committed by that person, the entry ceases to have effect when 2 years have elapsed since the commission of the most recent of those offences.

Wenier
27th February 2004, 11:42
i see you read the site i posted dangerous. Laser are not illegal to sell they are illegal to use thou as you are inteferring with the laser signal that the cops send.

Another point here is that they laser you headlights as it will reflect back therefore the jammer should be right above or below your headlights to be able to obsorb it, the reason it doesnt work off you helmet visor is that it will reflect at all kinds of funny angles and therefore they cant get a reading.

Now if you happen to speed lots and have a problem with tickets then one of these will save you and will make its cost up quickly. its a simple unit with two jammers and a switch to turn them on and off, of course when you get lasered you slow down and then switch them off and the cop gets a reading of you going the speed limit.


HOORAA :)

Heres the site with everything you need to know :)

http://www.radardirect.co.nz/index2.html <----

Wenier
27th February 2004, 11:49
With the demerit points ill try to explain this in the best english i can.
1. Until you pay your ticket demerit points from that ticket will not be added to your name.
2. If you get a ticket in march 03 and another in april 03 the demerits from the one in march will be deducted in march 05 likewise with the april one, they will be gone in april 05.
3. you get a couple of letters before actually having to pay your tickets.
4. If you are on 90 demerits (limit is 100) and you get a ticket of 25 demerits, and say 35 demerits of the 90 will be deducted in 40days, dont pay your ticket until those demerits are gone that way you will not have exceeded 100.

:)

I hope that is understandable, if you have any more questions on it post it and ill respond asap.

riffer
27th February 2004, 11:53
A question:

If I get more demerits, say another 20, and I get to 110, I lose my licence for 3 months, right?

And I guess that means all classes I am disqualified for...

When I get my licence back, am I back to 0 demerits? Or am I still on 110?

matthewt
27th February 2004, 12:13
A question:

If I get more demerits, say another 20, and I get to 110, I lose my licence for 3 months, right?

And I guess that means all classes I am disqualified for...

When I get my licence back, am I back to 0 demerits? Or am I still on 110?

When your license is taken away that means all classes. And yes you restart with a clean slate. 3 months if the tickets are spread over 2 years, it used to be 6 months if you got the 100 points within a year.

spudchucka
27th February 2004, 12:17
I think they have to show you your speed on the laser or radar if you ask, it is there own fault if they reset it.

Might need someone who knows the law on this to tells us what the deal is.

Bad luck celticno6. Might need to buy a jammer then :)

They don't have to show you the readout or even lock the speed on. Just seeing the readout and identifying the offending vehicle is sufficient.

However if the readout is locked and still available then it is best practice to offer the driver the opportunity to see the readout.

riffer
27th February 2004, 12:17
When your license is taken away that means all classes. And yes you restart with a clean slate. 3 months if the tickets are spread over 2 years, it used to be 6 months if you got the 100 points within a year.Thanks Matthew.

What affect does it have on insurance? Does anyone have any facts they can give me?

I'm 37, full no claims bonus (60% I think), 20 years driving, never lost licence. No claimed accidents EVER.

Currently I pay $46/ month TPFT.

Not that I'm anticipating losing the licence. It's just with 90 demerits I guess I have to prepare for the nearly inevitable...

750Y
27th February 2004, 12:26
With the demerit points ill try to explain this in the best english i can.
1. Until you pay your ticket demerit points from that ticket will not be added to your name.
4. If you are on 90 demerits (limit is 100) and you get a ticket of 25 demerits, and say 35 demerits of the 90 will be deducted in 40days, dont pay your ticket until those demerits are gone that way you will not have exceeded 100.
:)
I hope that is understandable, if you have any more questions on it post it and ill respond asap.

I am skeptical of point 1 and therefore point 4, but if You are correct I will have to take myself out into the carpark for a severe thrashing. 8-(

matthewt
27th February 2004, 12:55
I am skeptical of point 1 and therefore point 4, but if You are correct I will have to take myself out into the carpark for a severe thrashing. 8-(

You may just have to find that carpark. I seem to recall reading point 1 in osme ltsa (or police) documantation.

Wenier
27th February 2004, 13:14
Yea youll definitely need to find that carpark cus i am 99.9% sure of myself.

and thanks to spudchucka for the answer even if your right im still gonna argue with them and demand to see my readout cus otherwise it really aint fair. :)

750Y
27th February 2004, 13:20
FARK!!!
I am gonna open a fresh can-o-whoopass!!!
then I'm gonna go out & buy a jammer.
Can anyone spell DUMBASS for me?

Drunken Monkey
27th February 2004, 14:38
SINCE WHEN

Since always dude. Marty is 100% correct in his statement. The demerits system has worked this way since 1979. It has not been reworded in any Land Tranport Act reviews since.

:P

wkid_one
27th February 2004, 14:42
I checked with LTSA etc - and it is from date of offence - not payment. It was an old loophole that was closed about 48 months ago.

bungbung
27th February 2004, 14:54
Wow!

http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/roadcode/driver-responsibility/stepping-over-the-line1.html


Demerit points will also be removed if you have not offended for 2 years.

I wonder how many other people were under the impression that you lose points incurred for offences older than 2 years, <b>regardless</b> of whether you had incurred more points since then.

wkid_one
27th February 2004, 16:03
Wow!

http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/roadcode/driver-responsibility/stepping-over-the-line1.html



I wonder how many other people were under the impression that you lose points incurred for offences older than 2 years, regardless of whether you had incurred more points since then.
Interesting - driving when prohibited is only 35 points?
as are failure to remain stopped when stopped by a Cuntstable, or not stopping at all.

Kinda funny really given the severity of the act

wkid_one
27th February 2004, 16:19
PS - on the whole demerit point argument

(<!--[endif]-->When 2 years have elapsed since the commission of an offence in respect of which demerit points were recorded, the entry of the points made in respect of that offence ceases to have effect in relation to the person who committed that offence; but if demerit points were recorded in respect of 2 or more offences committed by that person, the entry ceases to have effect when 2 years have elapsed since the commission of the most recent of those offences.
Straight from the Land Transport Act 1998 Part 7 Section 91.

Right you are. It is two years from the date of the most recent - not the date in which they occurred.

Big Dog
27th February 2004, 17:13
PS - on the whole demerit point argument

(<!--[endif]-->When 2 years have elapsed since the commission of an offence in respect of which demerit points were recorded, the entry of the points made in respect of that offence ceases to have effect in relation to the person who committed that offence; but if demerit points were recorded in respect of 2 or more offences committed by that person, the entry ceases to have effect when 2 years have elapsed since the commission of the most recent of those offences.
Straight from the Land Transport Act 1998 Part 7 Section 91.




Right you are. It is two years from the date of the most recent - not the date in which they occurred.I thought that rule only applied when there were two or more charges relating set of offenses where one or more were opposed (defended) in which case they were applied from the date that the last matter was settled.

Only demerits I ever had were for dangerous driving, 25.
(aqua planed a falcon :o )

dangerous
27th February 2004, 17:36
PS - on the whole demerit point argument

(<!--[endif]-->When 2 years have elapsed since the commission of an offence in respect of which demerit points were recorded, the entry of the points made in respect of that offence ceases to have effect in relation to the person who committed that offence; but if demerit points were recorded in respect of 2 or more offences committed by that person, the entry ceases to have effect when 2 years have elapsed since the commission of the most recent of those offences.
Straight from the Land Transport Act 1998 Part 7 Section 91.

Right you are. It is two years from the date of the most recent - not the date in which they occurred.

Crap I here ya BUT, having been in this suition many a time I have spoken to the LTSA and they told me that you will lose demerit points 2yrs after they were awarded regardless of geting more......Otherwise I would have lost my licence serveral times over :angry:

The last time I spoke to them was a year ago and I lost it then I was also told that points were awarded from when you pay the fine or when it goes to court HOWEVER the points are back dated to when the offence was comited.

eg: I was up to 90dp and I got another 20 withen 2yrs BUT it takes 3 months before it goes to court if you do not pay. I needed 2months and 2 weeks before I lose 20dp so I let it go to court....I then recieved the extra points that were back dated BUT in the mean time (2 weeks earlyer) I lost 20 so I did NOT loose my licence.
My total points were gained in a 1yr period so acording to the quote above I should have lost it anyway.

Any how I was nicked twice more in 1 month so I walked anyway having gone out with 165 drive buy points :angry2:

However I aint gona take the chance again so I now (as a general rule) stick to the speed limit as I have read that you can be done in a 50kph zone if exceding the limit by 4.5km and in a 100kph zone 9km :angry: :angry2:

And please not that I except your point of view I must of just been lucky there for a while.
Also none of my fines were for doing more that 20kph over in a 100kph zone.
And when I lost it I still drove like nothing had changed :shake:

marty
27th February 2004, 22:16
here it is - how and when demerits are added to your licence. some of you guys really need to learn how to search and read legislation before making your statements.

(from S.88, LT Act 1998)


(4)Demerit points recorded under subsection (1) have effect on and from the date of the commission of the offence for which the points are recorded.

(5)In the case of an infringement offence where an infringement notice has been issued and the infringement fee paid to the enforcement authority at the address for payment specified in the notice before or within 28 days after service of a reminder notice for that offence, the following provisions apply for the purposes of subsection (4):
(a)The date on which the infringement notice was issued is to be treated as the date on which the offence was committed:
(b)A summary conviction for the offence is deemed to have been entered against the offender on the date of the payment of the infringement fee.
.........................................

here's the link i use:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz

Wenier
28th February 2004, 01:13
With the demerit points ill try to explain this in the best english i can.
1. Until you pay your ticket demerit points from that ticket will not be added to your name.
2. If you get a ticket in march 03 and another in april 03 the demerits from the one in march will be deducted in march 05 likewise with the april one, they will be gone in april 05.
3. you get a couple of letters before actually having to pay your tickets.
4. If you are on 90 demerits (limit is 100) and you get a ticket of 25 demerits, and say 35 demerits of the 90 will be deducted in 40days, dont pay your ticket until those demerits are gone that way you will not have exceeded 100.

:)

I hope that is understandable, if you have any more questions on it post it and ill respond asap.


Therefore wut i have stated here is the same as wut dangerous has stated above and i am pretty sure it is right and i will know definitely in 1 and a half years if it is infact right.

I also know someone who has currently got 300+ demerits but hasnt lost his license as he hasnt paid any of the fines therefore this would further prove me and dangerous to be right. But when the court part comes around hes fucked :)

Lou Girardin
28th February 2004, 06:26
However I aint gona take the chance again so I now (as a general rule) stick to the speed limit as I have read that you can be done in a 50kph zone if exceding the limit by 4.5km and in a 100kph zone 9km :angry: :angry2:

:

The policy is still a live ticket for more than 10km/h over the limit.
Lou

750Y
28th February 2004, 09:10
this is confusing because acts are being quoted which I take to be the authority and yet i am hearing reports to the contrary. my concern is that this matter is clarified so we KNOW where we stand.
I lost my license 8 yrs ago for incurring 3*35 demerit points in a 2 year period, the spread of the 3 speeding offences was in fact 23 months and I am concerned that paying my fine within 28 days instead of dragging it out resulted in me losing my license for 3 mths, when I could have avoided it. Of course at the time I was unaware of this. I feel very foolish indeed under that scenario. what is the truth i have to know how dumb i really am/was.

wkid_one
28th February 2004, 09:13
here it is - how and when demerits are added to your licence. some of you guys really need to learn how to search and read legislation before making your statements.

(from S.88, LT Act 1998)


(4)Demerit points recorded under subsection (1) have effect on and from the date of the commission of the offence for which the points are recorded.

(5)In the case of an infringement offence where an infringement notice has been issued and the infringement fee paid to the enforcement authority at the address for payment specified in the notice before or within 28 days after service of a reminder notice for that offence, the following provisions apply for the purposes of subsection (4):
(a)The date on which the infringement notice was issued is to be treated as the date on which the offence was committed:
(b)A summary conviction for the offence is deemed to have been entered against the offender on the date of the payment of the infringement fee.
.........................................

here's the link i use:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz
You use the same link as me....

I have also called to confirm this based on my offence for speeding. The demerit points were loaded to my name with the date I was caught speeding - not 54 days later when I paid the fine

dangerous
28th February 2004, 12:16
I feel very foolish indeed under that scenario. what is the truth i have to know how dumb i really am/was.

Ummmmm.....Yeh but not a lot of people are aware of this and hay, you've done ya time now.

After 28 days you get a reminder after another 28 days you get a letter saying that you'r of to court which is somwere between another month.
If you pay the fine before this court date then you have acepted being guility and the D/pionts go on your licence (back dated to the day of the fine)
If you let it go to court then you'r automaticaly found guilty and the points are regested and you get a extra $30 court cost added.

But as I have found $30 (twice) is cheap if you get to keep your licence

bikerboy
28th February 2004, 12:24
Laser jammers are still legal, radar jammers are a big no-no (I think because they are radar transmitters and you need a license for that).

I know a mate who was cited for "obstructing an officer in the course of his duty" for having a jammer. They'll get you if the really want to no matter what. :bash:

Jackrat
28th February 2004, 13:08
I know a mate who was cited for "obstructing an officer in the course of his duty" for having a jammer. They'll get you if the really want to no matter what. :bash:

Hmmmm,He must have admited it was turned on.
My HP mate tells me he won't pull somebody for jamming because he can't prove it was the jammer causing the missed shot,And he misses heaps,most nothing to do with jammers.
And just another thing while we're at it,Anybody that thinks the cops don't know what a jammer or any other device looks like,
:laugh: ,,Your kidding yourself, :laugh:

Lou Girardin
28th February 2004, 13:57
I know a mate who was cited for "obstructing an officer in the course of his duty" for having a jammer. They'll get you if the really want to no matter what. :bash:

I bet he didn't defend it. The cop has to prove exactly what obstruction was caused, i.e. that the offender had been speeding and he was unable to apprehend him because of the use of the jammer. Which is impossible.
We'd been down the same road years ago with headlight flashing. The Crown solicitor wouldn't wear charges of obstruction for the same reasons.
Lou

wkid_one
28th February 2004, 14:14
Agree with Lou and JR - not illegal to own one - and having one sitting on your dash board doesn't necessary mean you were using it. Provided it is turned off by the time you are pulled over - he hasn't got a s h i t show of proving he didn't ping you because of the jammer - let alone proving you were speeding in the first place

Wenier
28th February 2004, 15:38
Yea every cop should just about no wut a jammer looks like so should most people the idea really is to build it into the structure of your vehicle as best as possible that way it wont b as easily notice by a policemen when pulled over. :)

sAsLEX
28th February 2004, 16:30
Now here is one for the law buffs.

A mate got caught under the new Boy racer act and was given a ticket with demerits included which pushed him over the magic 100 mark. He thought he had been charged unfairly so took the case to court and go it dismissed, yet the demerits were still added to his total and he lost his licence.
His dad was rather angry at this so tried to get them taken off to no avail.

Can they do this??

Lou Girardin
28th February 2004, 17:31
Now here is one for the law buffs.

A mate got caught under the new Boy racer act and was given a ticket with demerits included which pushed him over the magic 100 mark. He thought he had been charged unfairly so took the case to court and go it dismissed, yet the demerits were still added to his total and he lost his licence.
His dad was rather angry at this so tried to get them taken off to no avail.

Can they do this??

No, demerits only apply on conviction.
They need to get a good lawyer.
Lou

marty
28th February 2004, 20:33
did he get an infringment for something else (like breaching his restricted - 25 demerits) and only get off the boy racer charge?

wkid_one
29th February 2004, 08:23
I agree with Marty.......

No charges apply if the conviction is overturned. He must have picked demerits up for some other breach...

Wenier
29th February 2004, 14:18
yea he must have got the demerits from something else otherwise the cops have made a mistake and will have to take them off.

The boy racer law is actually pretty shit in the way that it has been written in that if you take it to court there is usually a loop hole in the law so you can get off the charge, unless you get caught doing a skid then your gonna get charged. things like excessive acceleration and noise are actually quite easy to get off

pete376403
29th February 2004, 16:43
They don't have to show you the readout or even lock the speed on. Just seeing the readout and identifying the offending vehicle is sufficient.
Given the well-known "integrity" of some of the Pleece Farce, this means there is every opportunity for a cop to write out tickets to make quota, regardless of whether the victim was speeding or not. And ally this with the courts belief that the Police are always right, is there any wonder that the revenue being brought in by tickets is going through the roof?

Wenier
29th February 2004, 18:05
ahh i think the answer is no there isnt any wonder everyone knows they are doing it and hate them for it.

Now i wonder if any cops would be reading this forum and taking notice of the amount of dislike that is put on all cops from the general public

k14
29th February 2004, 18:50
Nope, i know this case. The reason he got the ticket was for doing a wheelspin when he was doing a u-turn in the wet. Not sure how much of a wheelie he did but it cant have been too major. The LTSA wouldnt budge an inch and he has lost his licence for 3 months.

He also had to go to court to get a special work licence (or whatever you call it).

Such a load of bullshit.

pete376403
29th February 2004, 18:50
And don't I just laugh out loud when I hear of some event and "the police are asking the help of the public in identifying....etc". Treat all motorists (bikes AND cars) like a cash cow then come asking for help to do their job.

marty
29th February 2004, 19:57
Now i wonder if any cops would be reading this forum and taking notice of the amount of dislike that is put on all cops from the general public

there's probably more than a few, and they're probably thinking that there are some real wankers talking some absolute shit on here too

dangerous
29th February 2004, 21:09
there's probably more than a few, and they're probably thinking that there are some real wankers talking some absolute shit on here too

Well marty, 'then good on em' even though they are only doing there job and doing as they are told, to me (I hope the minority not majority) are the "real wankers"

Case in hand: Some friends (Mr, Mrs, & 2 kids) were out for tea the other night he had a couple of drinks she did not, They were pulled over-breath tested- and she (the driver) was told by a young up himself full of shit look at me I'm a cop attude "thats a FAIL...........if you are a youth" Well is there any need for that?
You can imagine how she felt when he said 'fail' how would she get the kids to school etc and that gut felling.
This cop could tell that she was no youth I recon he said this to show of his misrible powers This sort of thing has you respecting them EVEN LESS

Lou Girardin
1st March 2004, 05:50
I don't know why they do the 'fail youth' thing. Last time I was checked I asked the idiot if I looked like I was under 20.
Lou

marty
1st March 2004, 08:29
i'm sure it's just to wind up people who get wound up over nothing...

Wenier
1st March 2004, 10:46
It really does piss most people off.
The worst one we had was went to get lunch out at porirua, got us some Pizza Haven, then on our way back were goin along kenepuru drive(i no i cant spell so feel free to correct me:)) in my brothers GTS4 that he does drag race legally.(so u no big bore front mount intercooler CPU upgrade all that shit)were not speeding and go past this cop he radars up about 5 times then eventually turns round to come after us, he pulls us up outside Pit Stop, and become young stuck up Captian obvious. Questions he asked.
1. wuts the speed radar for? (we had radar detector) reply: Its got real pretty lights that flash.
2. Do you own this car? reply: Well i am driving it arent i?(he wasnt to happy with that one)
3. where have you been, out to get lunch? (we have 3 boxes of pizza with us) reply: What do you think.
4. WOF and rego? reply: Yessss (us getting annoyed)
5. I jus need to do a license check? (mate are u a cock or wut go bac to college) reply: Whats your badge number cus ive had enough of this crap!

Then he backed down big time with the badge number thing, oooo that hate that one. :)

Thats pretty much y i hate cops some much

spudchucka
1st March 2004, 12:41
And don't I just laugh out loud when I hear of some event and "the police are asking the help of the public in identifying....etc". Treat all motorists (bikes AND cars) like a cash cow then come asking for help to do their job.

So you are saying that if you had information that could help identify a serious criminal you would not come forward because you got a speeding ticket.

Grow up!!!!

spudchucka
1st March 2004, 12:43
I don't know why they do the 'fail youth' thing. Last time I was checked I asked the idiot if I looked like I was under 20.
Lou

It might actually help some drivers to understand their own personal tolerance to aclohol and thereby make them safer, more responsible drivers.

Not every thing the police do is for a negative reason Lou.

Wenier
1st March 2004, 13:32
ur not a police officer are u spudchucka. im sure he is meaning that it is rude to say that when the person probably does no the limit and has kept under it

spudchucka
1st March 2004, 14:25
ur not a police officer are u spudchucka. im sure he is meaning that it is rude to say that when the person probably does no the limit and has kept under it

I can't see why it is rude, perhaps the manner in which it is said could be but simply saying isn't rude. It's just informing the driver of the result.

DeanOh
1st March 2004, 14:34
I was heading south at 9.40 this morning past Ngauranga Gorge where the flyover comes in - I was coming from the Hutt Valley - cop was on the side of the road (left) in the push bikes lane.

M8...thats bad luck. I would have gone past around the same time as you this morning, at about the same speed and i never saw him, nor him me, obviously. :Police:

Wenier
1st March 2004, 14:51
I can't see why it is rude, perhaps the manner in which it is said could be but simply saying isn't rude. It's just informing the driver of the result.

Well we'll have to b informed of the tone but i still wouldnt want to hear it even if i were over the youth limit as i would have known wut i could drink in the first place. If that makes sense :)

riffer
1st March 2004, 15:01
Nah don't agree. I put it under the same asshole behaviour as the cop who pulled me over for doing 105km/h overtaking and took great delight in telling me that if I'd gone 5 km/h faster he would have done me.

Yeah right. And if I had have been wearing an L plate he could have given me a big ticket too.

My point is, if it doesn't apply to the situation, the cop should shut the fuck up. It's just not helpful, it makes them look like assholes, and personally I'd prefer it if they put down their stupid lasers, and did some real police work for a change.

And Lou - my father-in-law - who is ex-MOT Motorcycle (Te Aroha) feels exactly the same way as you about the situation too.

Lou Girardin
1st March 2004, 15:37
I'm starting to wonder about spudchuckers affiliations too, he seems very defensive of the Police.
I object to some 'wet behind the ears' cop who hasn't been alive even as long as I've been driving, trying to wind up drivers with the 'that's a fail (pause) youth' line.
It's obvious to an idiot that I'm not 20 and I think I've learnt a lot about my alcohol capacity in 45 years of using it.
Lou

Wenier
1st March 2004, 16:03
if they did some real police work it would be a miracle. Like instead of people taking their broken in car to the cop shop they should b coming to where it happened to see the scene. Another one is a honda show car got stolen now its a show car so they stand out yet the cops didnt find it until it was completely burnt out which was a few days later. You could actually see into the gearbox, the heat was so strong it melted the outercasing of it. :)

I reckon if they did as much revenue collecting as actual police work there wouldnt be as many theifs in NZ.

Coldkiwi
1st March 2004, 16:30
ur not a police officer are u spudchucka. im sure he is meaning that it is rude to say that when the person probably does no the limit and has kept under it

very defenisive indeed. Well, spud mate, whether you're plod or not isn't the issue... I just hope you've got your ears open to what people are saying here. Sure some of its silly niggle but its worth all of us paying attention so we're informed as we need to be to not act like dickheads and not cause unwarranted grief to others

Lou Girardin
1st March 2004, 18:54
if they did some real police work it would be a miracle. Like instead of people taking their broken in car to the cop shop they should b coming to where it happened to see the scene. Another one is a honda show car got stolen now its a show car so they stand out yet the cops didnt find it until it was completely burnt out which was a few days later. You could actually see into the gearbox, the heat was so strong it melted the outercasing of it. :)

I reckon if they did as much revenue collecting as actual police work there wouldnt be as many theifs in NZ.

They did put a detective on the job when two new Mercs got nicked from a dealership in Auck though. Wonder why?
Lou

Wenier
1st March 2004, 19:24
yea merc probably paid the cops a bit extra to do some actual work aye :)

pete376403
5th March 2004, 20:20
So you are saying that if you had information that could help identify a serious criminal you would not come forward because you got a speeding ticket.

Grow up!!!!
I expect them to put the same sort of effort into solving crime as they do into revenue raising.

bondagebunny
5th March 2004, 21:05
dont you learn to read your speedo and just slow down.

mangell6
5th March 2004, 21:43
The problem is that the "little hitlers" and the young "power trippers" give the other reasonable HP personnel a bad name.

There is a BIG difference between HP and, what I call, "Real" Policemen. There motives are totally different. I will assist 'Real' police personnel without a second thought, HP though will always get a second thought.

James Deuce
5th March 2004, 21:49
The problem is that the "little hitlers" and the young "power trippers" give the other reasonable HP personnel a bad name.

There is a BIG difference between HP and, what I call, "Real" Policemen. There motives are totally different. I will assist 'Real' police personnel without a second thought, HP though will always get a second thought.

I met a really nice one at a checkpoint in Petone - I explained that I'd already been through two, he asked me where they were and let me go without a test :). And he was chatty and well-mannered. At 5am. Good bloke, and I wish there were more like him.

spudchucka
7th March 2004, 15:19
I'm starting to wonder about spudchuckers affiliations too, he seems very defensive of the Police.


I joined this forum because it was bike related, I was suprised to find so much anti police sentiment here. In fact I find it pretty sad.

I'm not saying the police are without fault but you guys criticise them over some pretty pathetic issues. Did you all get bored with rugby and take up hanging shit on the coppers as the new national sport???

Internet forums are great but they can also be the birth place of all sorts of false hoods and urban legands. If I see a police related link that I think is wrong or misleading, I'll provide an alternative viewpoint. I apologise in advance if any response I make comes across as a personal afront, (Lou), I have a tendancy to wright like that.

Wenier
7th March 2004, 17:28
sweet as dude i guess its more jus our perception of the police force with the way we have been dealt with in our own experiences with them. But totally respect wut ur saying :)

mangell6
7th March 2004, 19:11
I joined this forum because it was bike related, I was suprised to find so much anti police sentiment here. In fact I find it pretty sad.

I'm not saying the police are without fault but you guys criticise them over some pretty pathetic issues. Did you all get bored with rugby and take up hanging shit on the coppers as the new national sport???

Internet forums are great but they can also be the birth place of all sorts of false hoods and urban legands. If I see a police related link that I think is wrong or misleading, I'll provide an alternative viewpoint. I apologise in advance if any response I make comes across as a personal afront, (Lou), I have a tendancy to wright like that.

Spudchucka

There are two occupations who can never win - Police and Socialwork.

Both have 'policies' and 'expectations' defined for them and if the policy or expectation is wrong then they are held responsible, not the people who set the policy or set the expectations. They are screwed for doing their job. They are under orders and cannot do anything else or they will be sacked.

There is an alarming trend of "I am not responsible" for my own actions and this has resulted in the 'get-a-away' and 'why are you picking on me?' attitude in society, just ask Bart Simpson. When I was caught at 149 in a 100kmh I said yep you got me, the HP man was pleasant and polite. :o

There are a number of pathetic people on this list who easily criticise and compain, but not do anything else, but thats human nature I'm afraid Spudchucker. Lou, for example, backs up his opinion with action and while I may not agree with him all the time I still respect him because of the action. Lots of people take personal offront when none was offered or implied in written forums such as these. I call it the "gate mentality" they take 'a fence' so they might as well take the gate. - Now who will react to this paragraph :)

The Police in general do a very good job, but are severely hamstrung by policies and a minister, who believes that 'media issues' (people dieing on roads) and 'vote winning' are the most important things, that do not allow them to do policing and protecting society. Like the simple things, investigating 'crime' even the small petty ones like houses being broken into. There are a few 'arseholes' that are 'encouraged' to leave by their own colleagues, but they are few and far between. But seem to pick on poor motorcyclists ;)

All things are based on the mighty dollar, I will investigate a crime of $XXX,XXX value, but not a crime of $XX,XXX e.g. Mercedes vs Honda. Because that is were are required to do.

I have no afilliation with NZ Police, but do have friends on both sides of law enforcement.

AND speaking of rugby - Ireland beat the World Chumpions England!!!! :niceone:

Mike

Two Smoker
7th March 2004, 20:03
Well said mangell6, i completely agree. We have to expect a ticket in most instances of speeding (except for tickets when over taking, that is soooooo f@#$ing dumb, i mean which is safer overtaking at 110kmh and taking 200m to do it, or ivertaking at 140 and taking 70m to do it) As Bondage Bunny said, why dont we look at our speedo's occasionally.

And if you get a ticket or want to query it, just be polite and dont be arrogant. If you get all angry about it do you think that the cop is going to think, "oh that's a nice guy i'll let him off"

But if you are speeding and doing so in unsafe conditions or speeding for the hell of it (even though it sooooooo addictive......*personal experience as im sure most people think who also enjoy it*) and you get pulled over, take it like a man/woman and take the ticket be polite and pay up, take the risks pay the consequences.....

speedpro
7th March 2004, 20:18
Totally agree with being reasonable to the boys in blue.

I been pulled over twice for splitting lanes and been warned twice.

I got pulled over travelling to Tauranga just before Christmas just leaving some little town but still in 50K area. Cop was going other way with radar and did a u-turn. I had pulled over before he caught up and was looking in briefcase in back for licence. I said something like - you got me and that I wasn't paying attention as I was glancing at the map. He was quite a reasonable sort and let me off.

That's three warnings in a year and still no ticket. <looking for wood to touch>

Big Dog
8th March 2004, 16:29
I have the utmost respect for the police. They do a shit job for shit pay, and they have been known to tell me where speed cameras are when at checkpoints. I personally have never had a cop pull a bad attitude on me. Perhaps it helps that I don't dress like a squid, perhaps it's just that I treat them like real people.
I am certainly no angel.

However it F^&$# me off that if you ring up about a violent crime they don't want to know unless the offender is still present. This is not there fault this is our government not spending enough on policing in auckland and spending to much on a television station that less than 5% will be able to understand. Theres Kiwi logic for you. Our police is user pays and our television is govt owned :lol:
Now thats priorities!

Getting back on track, me? I aspire to being a good rider, I aspire to being a old rider but unless I ever get around to trackdays etc I don't care about being a fast rider.

spudchucka
9th March 2004, 14:00
There is an alarming trend of "I am not responsible" for my own actions and this has resulted in the 'get-a-away' and 'why are you picking on me?' attitude in society, just ask Bart Simpson. When I was caught at 149 in a 100kmh I said yep you got me, the HP man was pleasant and polite. :o

Ah, the sweet sound of reason.


There are a number of pathetic people on this list who easily criticise and compain, but not do anything else, but thats human nature I'm afraid Spudchucker. Lou, for example, backs up his opinion with action and while I may not agree with him all the time I still respect him because of the action. Lots of people take personal offront when none was offered or implied in written forums such as these. I call it the "gate mentality" they take 'a fence' so they might as well take the gate. - Now who will react to this paragraph

Good call!!


The Police in general do a very good job, but are severely hamstrung by policies and a minister, who believes that 'media issues' (people dieing on roads) and 'vote winning' are the most important things, that do not allow them to do policing and protecting society. Like the simple things, investigating 'crime' even the small petty ones like houses being broken into. There are a few 'arseholes' that are 'encouraged' to leave by their own colleagues, but they are few and far between. But seem to pick on poor motorcyclists

I think that road deaths shouldn't be considered a "media issue" although it is an emotive subject and gets shoved around often by people / organisations that have a particular barrow to push.

House burglaries are not a minor issue and aren't treated as such, burglars often grow up to be rapists who grow up to be murderers. The clearance rate for burgs relates to resources and that is such a huge issue that it can't really be covered in a internet forum.

Picking on motorcyclists?? Not unless they wear a patch on their backs.


AND speaking of rugby - Ireland beat the World Chumpions England!!!!

Go the Irish!!!!!!!! :2thumbsup

wkid_one
9th March 2004, 17:34
There is an alarming trend of "I am not responsible" for my own actions and this has resulted in the 'get-a-away' and 'why are you picking on me?' attitude in society, just ask Bart Simpson. When I was caught at 149 in a 100kmh I said yep you got me, the HP man was pleasant and polite. :o

As I have said before - if you do the crime - do the time. It is not like no-one knows the speed limits....you choose to break em - don't whinge when you get caught.

I too, both times, have pulled over the second the lights went on and taken my medicine and both times the cops were cordial and had a good discussion. ONe even said that had I been doing 10kph less he wouldn't have bothered but 129 was too much and he had to ticket me.

Indo
10th March 2004, 14:13
Now i wonder if any cops would be reading this forum and taking notice of the amount of dislike that is put on all cops from the general public

Im just glad that ignorant trash like yourself are the exception rather than the norm on this forum. Your not the general public,your some arrogant knob twat who thinks hes above the law.

Around 500 people die on the roads each year, the vast majority of which are needless deaths due to speed or driver error. The police that you hate are the ones that have to pick up and put all the limbs and organs back into the body after a fatal crash. They are the ones that have to inform the deceaseds family and prepare their body at the mortuary.

Motorcyclists are one of the most at risk groups from idiots who speed. When a speeding driver who crosses the centre line hits us, we die, he survives simple as that.

And yet you want police to ignore dangerous drivers? Oh wait or just ignore you, because its ok if you speed, because your such a good driver right?

Im sure the guy who crosses the centre line at 120kmh + was also a good driver, its just a tragic accident that there was some guy on a bike coming the other way at the time.

I won't even get started at the absolute morons who complain about the Police informing them they are above the youth limit and as a result are close to being above the adult limit.

White trash
10th March 2004, 14:22
Ummmmm............welcome to KB, Indo. :confused:

Don't hold back, dude. Tell us what you really think. :Police:

speedpro
10th March 2004, 14:38
Indo seems to have confused speed and danger or is assuming that the two are synonomous. If some dweeb crossed the centre line but was only doing 80K and managed to wipe me out I wouldn't think "gee I'm glad the twit was only doing 80k". If both drivers are on their side of the road then irrespective of how fast they are travelling they cannot have a head-on crash. It's perfectly reasonable however to predict that at higher speeds the possibility of crossing into the other lane increases due to things like inability to control the vehicle at the higher speed. The problem in this instance may not be the "higher speed" but the "inability to control". I personally think that a lot of NZ drivers have an "inability to control" in some very normal circumstances.

The Police and LTSA do focus on speed in their statistics and reporting. Case in point a while ago was a head-on crash somewhere in Canterbury. The notice about the accident made quite a point about one or both of the drivers exceeding the speed limit and that the Police "suspected" that one of the vehicles was on the wrong side of the road. Well gosh darn - they had a head-on crash, how the hell could they do that without one, or both, of them not being entirely within their lane.

Wenier
10th March 2004, 14:40
Wow dude Calm indo breathe in and out in and out cops really are wankers whether we like it or not.

And totally agree with u there speedpro it inability not speed.

And as we all no SPEED DOESNT KILL, ITS THE SUDDEN IMPACT

that was peter brooke i think who said that!

speedpro
10th March 2004, 14:41
Here's an example of the "sort" of facts(propoganda), in this case about bread, that the LTSA uses. Courtesy of "mototuneusa".

Did you know:
1) More than 98 percent of convicted criminals are bread eaters!
2) Exactly half of all children who grow up in bread - eating households score in the bottom 50% on standardized IQ tests!
3) In the 19th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the average life expectancy was less than 55 years; infant mortality rates were unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth; and diseases such as typhoid, scarlet fever, smallpox and influenza ravaged entire nations!
4) Statistics show that more than 75 % of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread!
5) Bread is made from a substance called "dough." Researchers have proven that as little as one pound of dough can choke a large animal like a horse. The average person eats more bread than that in one month!
6) Bread is known to be extremely addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and given only water actually begged for bread after just two days!
7) Bread is a "gateway" food item, which usually leads to such items as butter, jam, peanut butter and even ... bacon !
8) Bread has been proven to kill. Scientists have now uncovered alarming evidence that 100% of the people who eat bread will eventually die!
9) Unattended newborn babies can choke on bread!
10) Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 425 degrees Fahrenheit! Don't laugh...that kind of heat can kill a full grown adult in less than five minutes.
11) 96 % of cancer victims eventually admit that they've eaten bread!


12) Sadly, 9 out of 10 bread eaters are unable to distinguish between significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical babbling.

White trash
10th March 2004, 14:42
Indo, come back man!

That was funny!

Where's he gone then?

aff-man
10th March 2004, 14:42
Well abuse the opinion not the person man ,geez

Lou Girardin
10th March 2004, 16:05
Goebbels said, "if the lie is big enough and you repeat it often enough, people will believe it".
Indo believes it.
Lou

aff-man
10th March 2004, 16:12
hmmmmmmmmmmmmm :doh:

spudchucka
10th March 2004, 16:23
Indo seems to have confused speed and danger or is assuming that the two are synonomous. If some dweeb crossed the centre line but was only doing 80K and managed to wipe me out I wouldn't think "gee I'm glad the twit was only doing 80k". If both drivers are on their side of the road then irrespective of how fast they are travelling they cannot have a head-on crash. It's perfectly reasonable however to predict that at higher speeds the possibility of crossing into the other lane increases due to things like inability to control the vehicle at the higher speed. The problem in this instance may not be the "higher speed" but the "inability to control". I personally think that a lot of NZ drivers have an "inability to control" in some very normal circumstances.

The Police and LTSA do focus on speed in their statistics and reporting. Case in point a while ago was a head-on crash somewhere in Canterbury. The notice about the accident made quite a point about one or both of the drivers exceeding the speed limit and that the Police "suspected" that one of the vehicles was on the wrong side of the road. Well gosh darn - they had a head-on crash, how the hell could they do that without one, or both, of them not being entirely within their lane.

Its simple physics. Speed is a factor in the net damage caused in a crash, its so obvious. Whether speed caused the crash is irrelevant. Speed is only dangerous in so much as it promotes injury in the event of a crash and increases stopping distances.

Can anyone actually stand up and say that isn't true???

Two Smoker
10th March 2004, 16:26
Its simple physics. Speed is a factor in the net damage caused in a crash, its so obvious. Whether speed caused the crash is irrelevant. Speed is only dangerous in so much as it promotes injury in the event of a crash and increases stopping distances.

Can anyone actually stand up and say that isn't true???
I can stand up and say that is true! I think rather than targeting speed, how about the police target incompetent drivers.....

SPman
10th March 2004, 16:37
I can stand up and say that is true! I think rather than targeting speed, how about the police target incompetent drivers.....
Speed is a "magnifier" .It takes all your actions nearer the knife edge so that its easier to fuck up, when you fuck up at higher speeds, you have less time to react and if you hit something, the forces involved are much higher.
Thats why the police target it. They generally have no way of telling a competent driver from an incompetent driver in a pure speed situation. Half the drivers on the road are incompetent at 80k let alone 100k +, but try and tell them that.

Two Smoker
10th March 2004, 16:42
Speed is a "magnifier" .It takes all your actions nearer the knife edge so that its easier to fuck up, when you fuck up at higher speeds, you have less time to react and if you hit something, the forces involved are much higher.
Thats why the police target it. They generally have no way of telling a competent driver from an incompetent driver in a pure speed situation. Half the drivers on the road are incompetent at 80k let alone 100k +, but try and tell them that.
Yea that is true, hhhmmmmm, is there anyway to get incompetent drivers off the road? How about driver testing that is far harder than the current licencing system?

spudchucka
10th March 2004, 16:54
I can stand up and say that is true! I think rather than targeting speed, how about the police target incompetent drivers.....

Well actually they do, alot of incompetant drivers speed too as do criminals, gang members and drug dealers.

speedpro
10th March 2004, 19:02
Its simple physics. Speed is a factor in the net damage caused in a crash, its so obvious. Whether speed caused the crash is irrelevant. Speed is only dangerous in so much as it promotes injury in the event of a crash and increases stopping distances.

Can anyone actually stand up and say that isn't true???

I haven't EVER seen where anyone has ever said that in the event of an accident a higher speed will not possibly result in greater injury.

What I was getting at is that it is possible to go fast (faster than the legal limit anyway) without crashing. The reverse is true as well, just because a person never exceeds the posted limit does not preclude them from a crash. Even at or below the posted limit crashes still occur and people are still injured. I wonder what the LTSA would blame those crashes on??

James Deuce
10th March 2004, 20:02
I wonder what the LTSA would blame those crashes on??

Inappropriate speed. I kid you not.

SPman
10th March 2004, 20:07
Dont most crashes occur at or under the speed limit for the areas involved?

speedpro
10th March 2004, 20:14
Dont most crashes occur at or under the speed limit for the areas involved?

Logically then there should be encouragement to go faster than the speed limit in an effort to reduce crashes, presuming, like the LTSA does, that speed is the only relevant factor :brick: . I'm willing to put the effort in on that one. :whistle:

spudchucka
10th March 2004, 20:29
Logically then there should be encouragement to go faster than the speed limit in an effort to reduce crashes, presuming, like the LTSA does, that speed is the only relevant factor :brick: . I'm willing to put the effort in on that one. :whistle:

If people bothered to read the stats / reports with both eyes open they would see that speed is not the only factor that causes crashes. It is however an aggravating factor that increases the risk of causing serious injury / death in the event of a crash.

spudchucka
10th March 2004, 20:37
Inappropriate speed. I kid you not.

Or perhaps it was innapropriate speed for the conditions????

Not the same thing, aye.

spudchucka
10th March 2004, 20:42
I haven't EVER seen where anyone has ever said that in the event of an accident a higher speed will not possibly result in greater injury.

What I was getting at is that it is possible to go fast (faster than the legal limit anyway) without crashing. The reverse is true as well, just because a person never exceeds the posted limit does not preclude them from a crash. Even at or below the posted limit crashes still occur and people are still injured. I wonder what the LTSA would blame those crashes on??

Point taken but the speed you go is relevant to the seriousness of injuries you are prepared to suffer or inflict on others in the event of a crash.

Many crashes happen within a kilometer of home because the drivers level of awareness drops as the relax the nearer they get to home. If a driver is speeding and they are in that state of mind then the speed is unsafe because reaction times etc are impaired.

marty
10th March 2004, 22:11
an 'aggravating' feature. pretty much sums it up really. i've seen plenty of crashes, and funnily enough, the ones that were at slow speed GENERALLY didn't result in anyone dying. some of you guys don't like being told that you're 'close to being over the adult limit'....how would you like it if you were being followed by a police car, say you crossed the centreline or wandered into the fog line area, and were stopped by said police unit to be given a ticket for 'driving without due care and attention' like they do in the UK? or being told 'you were close to having a crash'.....speed is readily identifiable, statistacally easy to count, and at the end of the day, since the inception of HP in 2000, the road toll is pretty much lower than it ever has been. alcohol enforcement carries the same statistical attractiveness, hence the focus on that too. ACC, local DHB's and local councils pretty much pay for all the traffic enforcment, as they are the principal benefactors from a reduced road toll. unfortunately they don't have the same input into criminal/general policing - that is controlled/managed by the police executive in wellington.

Lou Girardin
11th March 2004, 06:00
A survey by the UK Govt's TRRL found that speed was the main contributor to 7.3% of accidents. speed as a factor made up around 15%. Inattention was the worst factor. By following the 'faster you go, the bigger the mess' thinking, where would we end up? How slow is safe? A man in front with a red flag?
The problem in NZ is that we have a very Calvanist way of thinking. That is, people only respond to punishment, not education. So we end up with some of the worst driver training in the Western world and most vicious enforcement.
Contrary to what some think, I don't advocate zero enforcement. We need to regain an element of discretion and reasonableness from our Police.
After all, the LTSA's own stats show that driver who travel at 10 to 15 km/h over the limit have fewest accidents.
Lou

White trash
11th March 2004, 06:39
A guy I went to school with crashed at 80 kph (100k zone) just before the Petone over bridge on the Hutt Road. This was the first accident he'd had on the road. Dead.

Then some fucktard like me crashes at more than twice the legal limit up near Tokoroa. 3 weeks in hospital and 1 rooted GSX-R750 later, I'm fine.

Luck has a hell of a lot to do with it too.

Did slow me down a bit though.

Lou Girardin
11th March 2004, 07:17
A mate of mine went the same way. After years of hooning around, he was killed doing less than the speed limit. He was distracted by something and went under a truck.
I've got slower as I've got older, mainly because there's too much traffic around. The risk factor has increased.
Lou

spudchucka
11th March 2004, 08:21
A mate of mine went the same way. After years of hooning around, he was killed doing less than the speed limit. He was distracted by something and went under a truck.
I've got slower as I've got older, mainly because there's too much traffic around. The risk factor has increased.
Lou

Lou, perhaps the increased "risk factor" has something to do with speed being policed so much harder these days.???? :spudwhat:

White trash
11th March 2004, 15:13
Saw a good one in Johnsonville about 8-9 years ago.

I was working at BP on a Saturday morning about 11.30. NS250R comes hooning into J'Ville with 7 cop cars in tow. It seems the police had chased him from Wgtn. Johnsonville gets pretty bloody busy on a Sat and there's people with kids every where.

The guy blasts through to the round about at the North end where he finally gives it up and stops.

Pursuit vehicle #1 runs straight up the back of the bike, shunts him forward into the round about, under the wheels of a truck trailor coming through from the right.

Truck screechs to a halt, Mr Plod's out of his car DRAGGING the unconsious rider from under the truck!

Rider survived but could of been a hell of a lot worse. :shit:

Lou Girardin
11th March 2004, 15:47
Lou, perhaps the increased "risk factor" has something to do with speed being policed so much harder these days.???? :spudwhat:

Nice try, Spud. It's actually the number of cage drivers who can't stay in their lane on corners.
I have very little to do with cops from a their work point of view.
White trash, I wonder if the cop was charged with dangerous. What do you reckon?
Lou

MD
11th March 2004, 19:06
Saw a good one in Johnsonville about 8-9 years ago.

I was working at BP on a Saturday morning about 11.30. NS250R comes hooning into J'Ville with 7 cop cars in tow. It seems the police had chased him from Wgtn. Johnsonville gets pretty bloody busy on a Sat and there's people with kids every where.

The guy blasts through to the round about at the North end where he finally gives it up and stops.

Pursuit vehicle #1 runs straight up the back of the bike, shunts him forward into the round about, under the wheels of a truck trailor coming through from the right.

Truck screechs to a halt, Mr Plod's out of his car DRAGGING the unconsious rider from under the truck!

Rider survived but could of been a hell of a lot worse. :shit:
I remember that incident and it puzzled me why the Police driver wasn't charged with following too close and being unable to stop at the round about when he had to give way to the truck on his right?. The impact proved he obviously wasn't able to stop in time. There were eye witness reports that the bike had clearly given up doing the runner and come to a complete stop long before the Police car rammed him.

Lou Girardin
11th March 2004, 19:29
It must have gone to the PCA. (Police Cover-up Authority)
Lou

spudchucka
11th March 2004, 21:03
It must have gone to the PCA. (Police Cover-up Authority)
Lou

You really are bitter about something aren't you!!

Lou Girardin
12th March 2004, 05:32
You really are bitter about something aren't you!!
Everytime a coconut!
Lou

What?
12th March 2004, 08:45
I remember that incident and it puzzled me why the Police driver wasn't charged...
Considering the media coverage the police are getting lately, are you still puzzled?

Motu
12th March 2004, 09:20
I remember that incident and it puzzled me why the Police driver wasn't charged with following too close and being unable to stop at the round about when he had to give way to the truck on his right?. The impact proved he obviously wasn't able to stop in time. There were eye witness reports that the bike had clearly given up doing the runner and come to a complete stop long before the Police car rammed him.


What sort of car was it? I remember they took Falcons off pursuit duties because the things just couldn't stop.A few years ago we had a drama outside our place early one morning and a Commodore overshot the scene and went up the curb.They basicly have to fit race brakes,then drive quietly around city streets - one day they have to stop hard...doesn't take many brains to see problems there.

spudchucka
12th March 2004, 13:25
Everytime a coconut!
Lou
Huh???????????

Two Smoker
12th March 2004, 13:38
What sort of car was it? I remember they took Falcons off pursuit duties because the things just couldn't stop.A few years ago we had a drama outside our place early one morning and a Commodore overshot the scene and went up the curb.They basicly have to fit race brakes,then drive quietly around city streets - one day they have to stop hard...doesn't take many brains to see problems there.They don't fit race brakes, but they do fit modifyed suspension and extremely hard pads (after 2-3 pad changes they need new rotors too), dont think they took the falcons off pursuit duty either?

Lou Girardin
12th March 2004, 15:53
Huh???????????

You might be too young to recognise the saying. It refers to coconut shies at the fair, you threw balls at them to win a prize. No prize for you this time Spud.
Lou

Motu
12th March 2004, 16:20
They don't fit race brakes, but they do fit modifyed suspension and extremely hard pads (after 2-3 pad changes they need new rotors too), dont think they took the falcons off pursuit duty either?

Standard Falcons of that era required pads and rotors at the first pad change,fit hard pads and you'll be fitting new rotors before the pads wear out.Taxi's fit very soft pads and replace them at 15,000km rather than fork out for rotors at every pad change.My brake suppliers have told me they were supplying vented rotors and Bendix Ultra for Police vehicles,but what do I know...sweet FA.

Two Smoker
12th March 2004, 17:42
Standard Falcons of that era required pads and rotors at the first pad change,fit hard pads and you'll be fitting new rotors before the pads wear out.Taxi's fit very soft pads and replace them at 15,000km rather than fork out for rotors at every pad change.My brake suppliers have told me they were supplying vented rotors and Bendix Ultra for Police vehicles,but what do I know...sweet FA.
LOL, cheers for putting me right Motu:niceone: , are they arfter market ones? aren't the standard ones vented? ill have a closer look sometime (when the cop aint looking)

Motu
12th March 2004, 19:15
They are all vented,aftermarket are supplied by DBA who are the OEM anyway,but they do a drilled and slotted high perf rotor that wears just as bad as standard.Actualy I think the main problem with those mid 90s Falcons was that they put discs behind the wheel - to stop brake dust getting on the mags - but of course this cut down airflow and the brakes overheated.Aftermarket mags would go a long way to help - but on a government vehicle...nah.

spudchucka
12th March 2004, 19:21
You might be too young to recognise the saying. It refers to coconut shies at the fair, you threw balls at them to win a prize. No prize for you this time Spud.
Lou

I knew what you meant but couldn't figure out why you said it. But now I know you have lowered yourself to scoring cheap points as and where you can get them.

Just how old are you, Lou?

El Dopa
12th March 2004, 19:25
They did put a detective on the job when two new Mercs got nicked from a dealership in Auck though. Wonder why?
Lou

The 'car squad' (detective squad for car crime, seperate from uniformed HP) Auckland are notorious for being the least proactive, least competent, most jobsworthy bunch of layabouts on the force. In short, there's a good reason for most of the whinges to do with theft etc in this thread. My source on this is good, but given the amount of anti-police sentiment flying around, I ain't saying any more (no, I'm not a cop).

For the record, I don't agree with little tinpot fascists throwing their weight around because they can, and hiding behind the badge so they can dole it out and avoid taking it, but consider this: The police and HP spend most of their lives doing a job I for one wouldn't want to do or possibly even could do well, as it requires a degree of self-control and a skin thickness I don't believe I have. HP will spend a good deal of their time scraping the remains of excessive speed and excessive drinking off the road, usually people who thought they knew their own limits, and now know better, if they're lucky.

The rest of the time they'll be taking shit both from politicians and the public, so personally i'm a bit surpised there's not more of them turning round and dishing out as much as they take.

Yeah, nobody made them sign up for it, but I think they're a 'necessary evil' (whatever that means), and I'm glad there are people willing to do a job I wouldn't do myself.

What?
13th March 2004, 07:44
What sort of car was it? I remember they took Falcons off pursuit duties because the things just couldn't stop.
umm, actually Motu, the brakes were the only good bit if you are referring to the EA falcons. Biggest problem was rear sub frame flex which meant they did not handle well in corners, or in straight lines at higher speeds. The cops themselves refused to push them as they were just plain scary. Tickford suspension helped, after the NZ govt transport engineer wrote to Ford telling them that their car was so bad that he would not properly test it until they fixed it.

Oh, and they were speed limited to 180K because the diff couldn't hack it... :laugh: