Good cop #2

[Lou Girardin]

My brother got zapped at 119 km/h by instant-on Stalker on the straight just north of the Brynderwyns. Cop asked for his licence etc. Then said, I guess you were just passing that truck. Paul couldn't remember a truck, but then saw one turn off to Waipu. So he clicked that the cop was giving him an excuse, and said yeah I that's right. The cop said, "as you do, it's a pain in the arse being stuck behind one, isn't it". Then Mr Plod saw the Valentine and asked what it was!. Paul told him it was a detector, the cop just said, "I didn't think they worked on bikes", and let him off.
It'd be good to know if it's the same guy that let me off there too.
I guess they haven't all been brainwashed by bullshit castle in Wellington.

[Gixxer 4 ever]

My brother got zapped at 119 km/h by instant-on Stalker on the straight just north of the Brynderwyns. Cop asked for his licence etc. Then said, I guess you were just passing that truck. Paul couldn't remember a truck, but then saw one turn off to Waipu. So he clicked that the cop was giving him an excuse, and said yeah I that's right. The cop said, "as you do, it's a pain in the arse being stuck behind one, isn't it". Then Mr Plod saw the Valentine and asked what it was!. Paul told him it was a detector, the cop just said, "I didn't think they worked on bikes", and let him off.
It'd be good to know if it's the same guy that let me off there too.
I guess they haven't all been brainwashed by bullshit castle in Wellington.
I wish. Should send some good ones up here to replace the wankers :tugger: we have. Most of them are bloody pommy import wankers that think they are a branch of the God squad. OOOOps was I angry? :angry2: :bash:

[maybe]

If we speed we know the consequences but it is good to get away with it once in a while :rolleyes:

[750Y]

...Then Mr Plod saw the Valentine and ...said, "I didn't think they worked on bikes"...

from that do i take it that they don't.
I thought the valentine would at least have picked up mr plod blasting other vehicles up ahead?

[toads]

Yeah well it's good to hear that there are some resonable human beings out there, to be honest I think most of them are doing a good job, but did anyone see holmes last night? he named a cop that stung an old couple on their way home from hospital with a $150 fine for going too slow, even after the old fulla explained that he was doing it because his wife was in extreme pain, and he was driving her because he couldn't afford to pay for an ambulance, holmes named the cop concerned and said he was making a complaint to his superior, good to hear someone going public with this sort of thing.

[Hitcher]

They're just doing their jobs. If you're unhappy with the law, take your fight to the source and lobby Parliament. We live in a democracy after all.

[spudchucka]

from that do i take it that they don't.
I thought the valentine would at least have picked up mr plod blasting other vehicles up ahead?
If he was a wise cop, which he sounds as if he was, then he wouldn't be "blasting" every vehicle on the road. Watching the approaching traffic and only "blasting" the vehicles that you can visibly see travelling at speed is the sensible approach. Why zap someone that is clearly travelling at or close to the speed limit and in doing so warn off the next guy who might be low flying, happy in the security that his expensive little radar buster provides him.

[750Y]

If he was a wise cop, which he sounds as if he was, then he wouldn't be "blasting" every vehicle on the road. Watching the approaching traffic and only "blasting" the vehicles that you can visibly see travelling at speed is the sensible approach. Why zap someone that is clearly travelling at or close to the speed limit and in doing so warn off the next guy who might be low flying, happy in the security that his expensive little radar buster provides him.

and so a good radar is not always effective. a jammer therefore must surely be the most effective device. If used in conjunction with a top detector I'm sure that the expense would more than pay for itself through ticket evasion.

[k14]

The jammers are only for the laser gun thingys. You can't get a jammer for normal radar.

But in my few thousand kms with my radar, probably around 2500kms, I have never come across a cop that uses the instant on option for the radar. If they did use them they probably would be a bit more effective, but unless the cop has a specific agenda to zap people with radars, then it probably isn't worth using instant on, just leave it on continuously.

[gav]

Think I'll just tell the next cop who stops me, Im on my way to watch the All Blacks, that should work!

[Mongoose]

Here is something I have notced on these threads to do with speed. If the cop does as he is instructed and tickets people for speed, he is an arsehole. If he does not do what he has been instructed to do, jolly fine chap that cop.
All this after the long thread about personal responsibility re accidents, surely this applies to speeding too?

[spudchucka]

Here is something I have notced on these threads to do with speed. If the cop does as he is instructed and tickets people for speed, he is an arsehole. If he does not do what he has been instructed to do, jolly fine chap that cop.
All this after the long thread about personal responsibility re accidents, surely this applies to speeding too?
The problem is that people want law enforcement on "Their" own terms and don't want to except that anything outside their personal perspective of where the law sits should be acted upon.

Burglars for instance don't think that there is anything wrong with breaking into someones home and flogging the brand new DVD or Playstation. Its their way of life and they think they should be able to help themselves without the law intervening. Paedophiles think it is quite ok to have it off with babies or small children, their perspective of what is lawful is quite different to any other normal person.

The common thread is that they all have their own perception of lawfulness. Its the same with traffic / speed enforcement, some people perceive 120, 150, 180 to be quite safe speeds to travel at and don't believe they should be punished for that behaviour. Yet of course they want the burglars and paedophiles locked up for good, (and rightly so). The point is that they want the law enforced on their terms.

It doesn't and cannot work like that. The law is the law and should be enforced impartially and without fear or favour. The reality is slightly different however and practicality dictates that police should use discrection for minor offences. Is speeding a minor offence, in some cases yes, in many case no.

So it comes down to police discretion and its use should be encouraged in my opinion. However it is not for every person caught speeding to be the sole judge of whether discretion is appropriate in their case, naturally they will have a bias towards discretion being used.

[750Y]

can't please all the people all the time that's for sure. people always want things their own way. I hardly never speed, but when i do I am on the lookout for cops as just one more hazard among the million other things. the cops are probably on the lookout for one more hazard also. only the perspectives differ.
people break the law, the police enforce the law and round it goes forever....
I for one am happy with how things are...
that 'good cop #2' sounds like a fairly generous guy' congrats to your brother Lou.

[Gixxer 4 ever]

The problem is that people want law enforcement on "Their" own terms and don't want to except that anything outside their personal perspective of where the law sits should be acted upon.

.
Yep...Human nature really

[Two Smoker]

Here is something I have notced on these threads to do with speed. If the cop does as he is instructed and tickets people for speed, he is an arsehole. If he does not do what he has been instructed to do, jolly fine chap that cop.
All this after the long thread about personal responsibility re accidents, surely this applies to speeding too?
I dont completely agree with this.... if i get a ticket for doing 111kmh or 112kmh, he is an arsehole, if i got done for 115+kmh then fair enough i was speeding and deserve it........ Thats why i and MR hardly ever speed on main highways, we just do stupid (but not dangerous) stuff instead hehehe.....

[Lou Girardin]

Radar Detectors aren't infallible, you still need to be alert for Sneaky Plod. The old saying is 'first in line gets the fine'.
And Spud, why do the Police use their discretion far more for some offences than for others. When did you last issue a ticket for, say, failing to indicate. It's at least as common as speeding, but I'll bet that it's way down in the number of tickets issued by any Officer.

[bikerboy]

........When did you last issue a ticket for, say, failing to indicate. It's at least as common as speeding, but I'll bet that it's way down in the number of tickets issued by any Officer.

As there isn't a machine to do it for them, they have to be awake. :eek:

[scumdog]

The jammers are only for the laser gun thingys. You can't get a jammer for normal radar.

But in my few thousand kms with my radar, probably around 2500kms, I have never come across a cop that uses the instant on option for the radar. If they did use them they probably would be a bit more effective, but unless the cop has a specific agenda to zap people with radars, then it probably isn't worth using instant on, just leave it on continuously.

All the ones I have nailed at 140+ were depending on their radar detectors - suckers!! on a good road with not too much traffic and the radar on hold the guy coming the other way is toast!!!! :killingme

[spudchucka]

Radar Detectors aren't infallible, you still need to be alert for Sneaky Plod. The old saying is 'first in line gets the fine'.
And Spud, why do the Police use their discretion far more for some offences than for others. When did you last issue a ticket for, say, failing to indicate. It's at least as common as speeding, but I'll bet that it's way down in the number of tickets issued by any Officer.
I young guy ran a red in front of me a few nights ago. He just biiggy backed through the intersection with other traffic but in reality he had plenty of time to stop, (the light was green on my side and he was only 1/2 way through the intersection). I followed him for a few hundred metres and his driving wasn't that bad and I was about to flag pulling him over, then he switched lanes in front of me without indicating. Pulled him over and we had quite a decent chat about his driving and a few laughs too. He knew he was driving like an ass and admitted running the red on purpose. He got a ticket for the red light and was grateful, knowing that he could have got one for the lane change as well. To me the red light was the more dangerous act, thats why I gave him that ticket. I couldn't see any point in giving him one for the lane change as well.

[spudchucka]

As there isn't a machine to do it for them, they have to be awake. :eek:
Still haven't gotten over it huh!!

[DEATH_INC.]

So it comes down to police discretion and its use should be encouraged in my opinion.
I agree.I mean,what's wrong with doing 120k on say the southern m/way at 6am when there's no traffic around?(example).Why should the cop be required to issue a ticket if he can see it's safe......??

[scumdog]

As there isn't a machine to do it for them, they have to be awake. :eek:

Nah, failing to indicate etc is chicken-shit (unles they have caused a danger) so I ignore them,speed and eba etc is more of a problem

[Gixxer 4 ever]

Still haven't gotten over it huh!!
So I see a touch of the human nature in your comments.
I know we need laws and law enforces to keep society going but it works two ways. When you pull people over give some respect and you will get it back. As you did with the red light rider. How ever our local traffic enforces are becoming an absolute pain in the ass with an attitude that could well divide them from the help they may need one day. They need training in people skills. Not so much the tickets that have bugged me but the way they do their job. Just be nice not smart.
Oh by the way I like to read your posts they are good. This is not an attack on you but a comment about the way some of the other offices do their job.

[marty]

The problem is that people want law enforcement on "Their" own terms and don't want to except that anything outside their personal perspective of where the law sits should be acted upon.

Burglars for instance don't think that there is anything wrong with breaking into someones home and flogging the brand new DVD or Playstation. Its their way of life and they think they should be able to help themselves without the law intervening. Paedophiles think it is quite ok to have it off with babies or small children, their perspective of what is lawful is quite different to any other normal person.

The common thread is that they all have their own perception of lawfulness. Its the same with traffic / speed enforcement, some people perceive 120, 150, 180 to be quite safe speeds to travel at and don't believe they should be punished for that behaviour. Yet of course they want the burglars and paedophiles locked up for good, (and rightly so). The point is that they want the law enforced on their terms.

It doesn't and cannot work like that. The law is the law and should be enforced impartially and without fear or favour. The reality is slightly different however and practicality dictates that police should use discrection for minor offences. Is speeding a minor offence, in some cases yes, in many case no.

So it comes down to police discretion and its use should be encouraged in my opinion. However it is not for every person caught speeding to be the sole judge of whether discretion is appropriate in their case, naturally they will have a bias towards discretion being used.
well said dude.

[marty]

I agree.I mean,what's wrong with doing 120k on say the southern m/way at 6am when there's no traffic around?(example).Why should the cop be required to issue a ticket if he can see it's safe......??nothing's wrong with it. that's why you never see a HP car at 6am on the southern. i should know - i've been blasting up it every day this week.....:innocent: .



<TABLE class=tborder cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR title="Post 69649" vAlign=top><TD class=alt1 align=middle width=125>k14</TD><TD class=alt2>The jammers are only for the laser gun thingys. You can't get a jammer for normal radar.



But in my few thousand kms with my radar, probably around 2500kms, I have never come across a cop that uses the instant on option for the radar. If they did use them they probably would be a bit more effective, but unless the cop has a specific agenda to zap people with radars, then it probably isn't worth using instant on, just leave it on continuously.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



as for instant on - any HP cop worth their salt will use instant on, and use it wisely, mainly to catch the 'sophisticated' speeders (as leo calls them) who use high-end radar detectors. scrupulous use of the stalker can produce excellent results - leaving it on only catches the idiots and tourists (as scumdog will attest....). there are many other factors why even a valentine or escort won't pick up a carefully used radar/laser. the good operators know what they are, and use those factors to their advantage. on the way from from dorkland tonite, i noticed the HP cars leaving their radars running. this is a good ploy when it is busy, as it keeps the high-end speeders guessing, and when it is busy it is hard to u-turn and pursue anyway, so the HP guys tend to be more 9T8H than 9TSH....:Police:

[Kickaha]

I dont completely agree with this.... if i get a ticket for doing 111kmh or 112kmh, he is an arsehole, if i got done for 115+kmh then fair enough i was speeding and deserve it........ Thats why i and MR hardly ever speed on main highways, we just do stupid (but not dangerous) stuff instead hehehe.....

So if we have a 100km speed limit why is 115+ speeding and 111km not?
reality is anything over 100km you can be ticketed for whether it is dangerous or not isn't the issue.


I agree.I mean,what's wrong with doing 120k on say the southern m/way at 6am when there's no traffic around?(example).Why should the cop be required to issue a ticket if he can see it's safe......??

See above,you know the rules if you chose to break them,then be prepared to suffer the consequences of your actions,safety is a question of perspective you may consider yourself safe,if he doesn't who is right?

[marty]

dangerous driving is a different offence to speeding, this is reflected in the penalties. why is poking your tongue out no offence, but poking your dick out offensive behaviour?

[scumdog]

So if we have a 100km speed limit why is 115+ speeding and 111km not?
reality is anything over 100km you can be ticketed for whether it is dangerous or not isn't the issue.



See above,you know the rules if you chose to break them,then be prepared to suffer the consequences of your actions,safety is a question of perspective you may consider yourself safe,if he doesn't who is right?

Hey, if it would keep everybody happy we would give anybody doing 101kph a ticket, that way there would be no quibbles about "discretion" etc, you would all be happy with that eh? eh?

[Kickaha]

Hey, if it would keep everybody happy we would give anybody doing 101kph a ticket, that way there would be no quibbles about "discretion" etc, you would all be happy with that eh? eh?

Everyone would just find something else to snivel about :baby:

[Lou Girardin]

Nah, failing to indicate etc is chicken-shit (unles they have caused a danger) so I ignore them,speed and eba etc is more of a problem

Come and drive on Auck motorways and say it's chickenshit. It's always dangerous and causes more accidents than speeding.

[Lou Girardin]

I think you're fooling yourself with the "many other factors' Marty. Instant on is the only thing a Valentine won't trigger on, because there is nothing to detect.
I've had 5 km's warning with constant-on driving on a long straight road (I
PS. started to think it was a false alert) and I've had over a km warning on a short burst of instant-on. But if you're not paying attention you're asking for a ticket.

PS. Who's Leo?

[sAsLEX]

Come and drive on Auck motorways and say it's chickenshit. It's always dangerous and causes more accidents than speeding.

Do they even have multi lane roads down there????

[scumdog]

Come and drive on Auck motorways and say it's chickenshit. It's always dangerous and causes more accidents than speeding.

Not when it is somebody travelling in the opposite direction who turns left into their driveway and nobody is behind them, be realistic, I obviously wouldn't be talking about motorways in rush hour :rolleyes:

[scumdog]

Do they even have multi lane roads down there????
Hell ye :bleh: ! - one lane in each direction!!

[Mongoose]

dangerous driving is a different offence to speeding, this is reflected in the penalties. why is poking your tongue out no offence, but poking your dick out offensive behaviour?

Have you ad a close look at your own dick? Maybe then you will appreciate the offensiveness of it. :Pokey: :doobey: :killingme

[DEATH_INC.]

See above,you know the rules if you chose to break them,then be prepared to suffer the consequences of your actions,safety is a question of perspective you may consider yourself safe,if he doesn't who is right?

That's my point.If somethings obviously safe then what's wrong with it?Why can't the copper be free to decide?
If I was doing 50kph past all the mums dropping the kids at school I'd want my ass kicked,but at the moment it's legal.
Just because it's law dosn't mean it's right......

[moko]

The problem is that people want law enforcement on "Their" own terms and don't want to except that anything outside their personal perspective of where the law sits should be acted upon.

You`re right,had a laugh at some guy down my mate`s place last week,moaning about some guy down the road`s un-taxed car.same bloke was there delivering the latest batch of pirated DVDs.

[spudchucka]

so the HP guys tend to be more 9T8H than 9TSH....:Police:
Roger that.

Off the topic, I just about fall over from laughing so hard every time a see a boy racer type with CD's stuck all over the front of their cars. Cracks me up that one.

[marty]

I think you're fooling yourself with the "many other factors' Marty. Instant on is the only thing a Valentine won't trigger on, because there is nothing to detect.
I've had 5 km's warning with constant-on driving on a long straight road (I
PS. started to think it was a false alert) and I've had over a km warning on a short burst of instant-on. But if you're not paying attention you're asking for a ticket.

PS. Who's Leo?absolutely not lou. the stalker is not a TR6. i know exactly how it works, exactly how to use it to it's potential, and exactly how to avoid being picked up by detectors. instant on is just one of the ways to avoid/minimise detection. i run an escort 8500 x50, and it often doesn't pick up stalker being used carefully - although i know the sh1 highway north of huntly pretty well from both sides of the fence, and where the radar is most/least effective, so i am accordingly careful

ps - he's been around for longer than you have

[Two Smoker]

[QUOTE=Kickaha]So if we have a 100km speed limit why is 115+ speeding and 111km not?
reality is anything over 100km you can be ticketed for whether it is dangerous or not isn't the issue.

But the thing is there is a 10km tolerance, therefore to a degree the speed limit is 110kmh not 100..... Im saying that it is a joke if you get done for doing 1 or 2 kmh over the limit, but if your doing 5kmh over it is obvious to yourself as well as the cops that your speeding.....

Hey Marty did i see you on Point View Drive the other day???? you popped the wheel, went a little way and then turned back around onto Whitford road......

[MikeL]

Turning without indicating. Here's an interesting philosophical question. Just as a tree falling in a forest can be said to make no sound if there is no ear to hear it, can turning into my driveway at 1 a.m. on a deserted street without indicating be an offense? Suppose some sneaky Mr Plod was concealed in the bushes and pounced on me, could I plead innocence on the basis that there was nobody to indicate "to" and therefore use of the indicator was pointless?
BTW I do this all the time... Saves electricity.

[bikerboy]

Still haven't gotten over it huh!!

Yeah, I'm only 90% over it. All charges have been dropped but one, so far, it is still being considered. The "offensivefer" was off duty, but lied saying he was on call. This cleverly proven false by me solicitor. hehehe.

If the sole charge (dark visor) goes to court, legal advice is it'll be thrown out, if the poo lice drop the charge then I have been unlawfully detainned, and given the Detective lied I can argue discrimination, and as he was off duty there are the civil aspects of the case. :-)

Bottom line: "naughty" detective had no reason (legal one) to pull me over in the first place, so all charges must be dropped, opening up all sorts of potential recourse. hehehe.

Lesson learned: Justice can be bought with a very good lawyer, :ar15:

[MikeL]

Lesson learned: Justice can be bought with a very good lawyer, :ar15:

Advantages of being a rich c*nt, eh?
But you're a subversive bastard, insisting on the letter of the law and getting off on piffling technicalities. Where would we be if everyone did that? The whole fabric of society would be torn asunder. Thank God we have poor people who can't afford lawyers...

But don't think you've had the last laugh. They know who you are...

[geoffm]

All the ones I have nailed at 140+ were depending on their radar detectors - suckers!! on a good road with not too much traffic and the radar on hold the guy coming the other way is toast!!!! :killingme
Even without instant on, you would be pushing it to slow down in time on a windy road. No chance at all whith photo radar.
A long straight with the V1, you could slow down alright, but corners and hills change things a bit, especailly for Ka band units.
Geoff

[spudchucka]

Turning without indicating. Here's an interesting philosophical question. Just as a tree falling in a forest can be said to make no sound if there is no ear to hear it, can turning into my driveway at 1 a.m. on a deserted street without indicating be an offense? Suppose some sneaky Mr Plod was concealed in the bushes and pounced on me, could I plead innocence on the basis that there was nobody to indicate "to" and therefore use of the indicator was pointless?
BTW I do this all the time... Saves electricity.
Of course it is still an offence. Should you be punished for it? Of course not.

[spudchucka]

Bottom line: "naughty" detective had no reason (legal one) to pull me over in the first place, so all charges must be dropped, opening up all sorts of potential recourse. hehehe.

Lesson learned: Justice can be bought with a very good lawyer, :ar15:
Perhaps "naughty" detectives should stick to drinking latte's then. It would be interesting to know his stated reason for pulling you over, the LTA basically allows for anyone driving a vehicle on a road to be pulled over to check licence and vehicle details, which makes it perfectly legal to stop anyone anytime. Perhaps he had something else on his mind?

[FROSTY]

I've wondered what charges Would be laid if I was caught running in my race bike on the road.
I'm a licenced rider. The bike is as safe if not safer than most road bikes.
I wsas gonna hook on the rear plate with taiilight/indicators
and throw on a couple of blip indicators on the front

[Mongoose]

Perhaps "naughty" detectives should stick to drinking latte's then. It would be interesting to know his stated reason for pulling you over, the LTA basically allows for anyone driving a vehicle on a road to be pulled over to check licence and vehicle details, which makes it perfectly legal to stop anyone anytime. Perhaps he had something else on his mind?


Like the hot blonde that just turned him down? :headbang:

[Lou Girardin]

Even without instant on, you would be pushing it to slow down in time on a windy road. No chance at all whith photo radar.
A long straight with the V1, you could slow down alright, but corners and hills change things a bit, especailly for Ka band units.
Geoff

I've many had warnings from around bends, over hills etc. it all depends on the amount of radar reflective material in the area.
Also, deceleration at a certain rate will prevent the Stalker locking on. The impossible trick is to maintain that rate.

[Lou Girardin]

Perhaps he had something else on his mind?

Oh Oh, he's been watching Reno 911.

[Mongoose]

I've many had warnings from around bends, over hills etc. it all depends on the amount of radar reflective material in the area.
Also, deceleration at a certain rate will prevent the Stalker locking on. The impossible trick is to maintain that rate.

Biggest problem most have with detectors is they think that they know hotspots for other than cops setting them off and tend to either ignore them then, or if the detectors squaks at them they forget how far it can pick up a signal and speed up again way to soon

[Lou Girardin]

Biggest problem most have with detectors is they think that they know hotspots for other than cops setting them off and tend to either ignore them then, or if the detectors squaks at them they forget how far it can pick up a signal and speed up again way to soon

Exactly!
Operator over confidence. Use of Ka band has been a help though, there's almost no falsing on that.

[Mongoose]

Exactly!
Operator over confidence. Use of Ka band has been a help though, there's almost no falsing on that.

Yeah, but you still gotta believe it EVERY time it goes off or you are wasting your time having one.

[spudchucka]

Oh Oh, he's been watching Reno 911.
Thats a funny show! You might be able to get a part on it?

[sAsLEX]

If the sole charge (dark visor) goes to court, legal advice is it'll be thrown out, if the poo lice drop the charge then I have been unlawfully detainned, and given the Detective lied I can argue discrimination, and as he was off duty there are the civil aspects of the case. :-)


Good to hear they have backed down from the charges. What is the charge relating to the tinted visor??
I often ride with mine at night, crappy winter sun dissapearing before a ride ends. It is illegal in UK if I remember correctly to wear a tinted visor at all, where they get that logic I dont know..

[speedpro]

Good to hear they have backed down from the charges. What is the charge relating to the tinted visor??
I often ride with mine at night, crappy winter sun dissapearing before a ride ends. It is illegal in UK if I remember correctly to wear a tinted visor at all, where they get that logic I dont know..
bank robbers are rather fond of them

[pete376403]

If it is not legal in the UK to use a tinted visor, why is it legal to wear sunglasses behind a clear visor?
If so, then it can't be a riders vision thing. So the police can identify rider from speed camera photos, perhaps?

[Gixxer 4 ever]

If it is not legal in the UK to use a tinted visor, why is it legal to wear sunglasses behind a clear visor?
You can take the sun glasses off when it gets dark :innocent:

[Mongoose]

You can take the sun glasses off when it gets dark :innocent:

Take tha a step further, yellow tints are good, you can wear them right into the evening and not go blind

[sAsLEX]

You can take the sun glasses off when it gets dark :innocent:

you can also lift your visor and traansform helmet to open face! which are legal, just have to squint through teary vision
:pinch:

[jrandom]

you can also lift your visor and traansform helmet to open face! which are legal, just have to squint through teary vision
:pinch:

And the occasional chunk of loose road metal hitting you in the eye at 100kph.

[Ghost Lemur]

Why has no one mentioned the simple method of changing the tinted visor to a clear one when needed.

[Firefight]

Why has no one mentioned the simple method of changing the tinted visor to a clear one when needed.


yep dam good point GL, got caught out one night getting back late with me dark visor, always carry a clear one now when I go on day rides.

F/F :crazy:

[sAsLEX]

And the occasional chunk of loose road metal hitting you in the eye at 100kph.

that must be why all those harley riders look so angry! being hit in the face with sh*t at that speed would do it to ya :stoogie:

[Two Smoker]

that must be why all those harley riders look so angry! being hit in the face with sh*t at that speed would do it to ya :stoogie:
Especially with MR's rock shooting maching hehehe.....

Well GL, i dont carry it, because there is nowhere to put it, i dont ride with a back pack because of my riding style.....

[DEATH_INC.]

Me neither,I just ride with it open if I can't see through it....

[Wenier]

yea i cant b bother to carry another one as i will jus scratch it or break it. So jus have to slow down or open the visor at night.

[bikerboy]

......stated reason for pulling you over, the LTA basically allows for anyone driving a vehicle on a road to be pulled over to check licence and vehicle details, which makes it perfectly legal to stop anyone anytime.....

He stated the reason for stopping me was that I had "over taken on the right" while on Hobson street. As he followed me, before stopping me, he said I "accelerated to 100kph before the onramp ended".

It was too late to then state he stopped me for a regular vehicle check. Evidently if that is the case it must be stated at the time you are pulled over. :shifty:

[spudchucka]

It was too late to then state he stopped me for a regular vehicle check. Evidently if that is the case it must be stated at the time you are pulled over. :shifty:
No, but if you say one thing and then try to change your story to something else you will just look like a complete ass to a judge.

[VivaVee]

As I approached the harbour bridge tonight, a cop pulled away from the side and eventually in behind me. No worries I thought - just a cautious ride home. Over the brow of the bridge and down the over side to see the traffic banked up heading south. I figured that I was in for a damn slow cage-style ride home - lane splitting with a cop directly behind me didn't seem like a smart idea. After a while he pulls up along side, lifts his visor and says " I don't mind if you want to go between the traffic since its 'stopped' - but mind that this is only my interpretation ... ". So off I went, lane-splitting merrily and keeping an eagle eye out for anyone with a different interpretation.

This put me in a damn fine frame of mind. I'm sure mankind will benefit.

[k14]

As I approached the harbour bridge tonight, a cop pulled away from the side and eventually in behind me. No worries I thought - just a cautious ride home. Over the brow of the bridge and down the over side to see the traffic banked up heading south. I figured that I was in for a damn slow cage-style ride home - lane splitting with a cop directly behind me didn't seem like a smart idea. After a while he pulls up along side, lifts his visor and says " I don't mind if you want to go between the traffic since its 'stopped' - but mind that this is only my interpretation ... ". So off I went, lane-splitting merrily and keeping an eagle eye out for anyone with a different interpretation.

This put me in a damn fine frame of mind. I'm sure mankind will benefit.

Now thats what we like to see more off, :not: to that cop, good man.

[Pixie]

If we speed we know the consequences but it is good to get away with it once in a while :rolleyes:
The consequenses of "speeding" safely by a skilled sensible rider/driver are no worse than travelling at legal speeds.
The COSTS,of course,are the TAXES(fines they incur)
Don't believe the propaganda from Helengrad.Develop the correct skills and maturity,and buy as much Electronic defense as you can aford.

[Pixie]

As I approached the harbour bridge tonight, a cop pulled away from the side and eventually in behind me. No worries I thought - just a cautious ride home. Over the brow of the bridge and down the over side to see the traffic banked up heading south. I figured that I was in for a damn slow cage-style ride home - lane splitting with a cop directly behind me didn't seem like a smart idea. After a while he pulls up along side, lifts his visor and says " I don't mind if you want to go between the traffic since its 'stopped' - but mind that this is only my interpretation ... ". So off I went, lane-splitting merrily and keeping an eagle eye out for anyone with a different interpretation.

This put me in a damn fine frame of mind. I'm sure mankind will benefit.
Be careful,There was a letter in kiwi rider from someone who was told it was o.k. to split lanes by one cop,and the got busted later for splitting,by another.

[Pixie]

you can also lift your visor and traansform helmet to open face! which are legal, just have to squint through teary vision
:pinch:
As Monty Burns said :"This fog is so bad I can't see my own cataracts"

[Pixie]

Still haven't gotten over it huh!!
Next time the news reports that a cop was having the shit kicked out of him and the bystanders didn't assist the cop(as in Masterton)Think about the consequenses of traffic revenue policies on public perception of the police.

[Pixie]

absolutely not lou. the stalker is not a TR6. i know exactly how it works, exactly how to use it to it's potential, and exactly how to avoid being picked up by detectors. instant on is just one of the ways to avoid/minimise detection. i run an escort 8500 x50, and it often doesn't pick up stalker being used carefully - although i know the sh1 highway north of huntly pretty well from both sides of the fence, and where the radar is most/least effective, so i am accordingly careful

ps - he's been around for longer than you have
What do you use s.h.1 north of huntly for?there is a pefectly good road acrossthe river. : :2thumbsup

[spudchucka]

Next time the news reports that a cop was having the shit kicked out of him and the bystanders didn't assist the cop(as in Masterton)Think about the consequenses of traffic revenue policies on public perception of the police.
Cool, another "Expert" dredging up dead threads. Thats just what we need!