Fine or no fine?

[Cr1MiNaL]

Going to work in the rain 7.30 am in the recent wind that just hit Auckland blown all over the m-way was doing 111-112kmph spotted marked police car didn't try n slow down as I was swerving way too much... he pulls me over shows me speed of 121! issues me $175 ticket and 35 demerits (1km over the 20 demerit range) same time says my no plate is not displayed in the appropriate manner and fines me another $200 for it...im still asking him why he cant read it when I can...(were sitting in his cruiser as its raining.) total of $375 that morning. I took tickets and rode to work.

12 days later same place, same cop, unmarked honda accord this time. I wasn't speeding after my recent fines was pretty broke. Still pulls me over, recognizes me, asks for license. I give him same license he ticketed me on 12 days ago, (overseas valid license, I came back to NZ in feb so its valid till next feb). Says its not valid and gives me $400 for riding on an inappropriate license.

Leaves to go to an accident up at the Orewa lights, offers no explanations.. I'm standing there dumbfounded. Since I have had my license converted to a NZ full... did that 2 days later. Put that in my appeal letter too.

I'm appealing the following:
$200 number plate fine,
$400 overseas license fine and
also requesting the 35 demerits be reduced to 20 demerits as its over by just 1km! and cud have been error (weather,fog,inaccurate instrument calibration or wind even?). I've written to them, but feel i will mostly have to fight it out in court...

Resident :Police: and fellow knowledgeable members I really do appreciate your responses...


Cheers and thanks in advance.

[jimbo600]

Reckon you'll get off the rego and license fines, but will have to pay the speeding one.

Fuckin' snakes aye. Doing the force proud, but hey they're not damaging public opinion at all. Nooooooooo!

[MidnightMike]

Maybe thats his daughter in your profile pic, so he felt like revenge.

[babyblade250rr]

yeah sounds pretty stupid raj,

think you will get off everything except for speeding fine, i think they should probably reinstate some of the taken demerits as you requested.

Cop was just being an ass i reckon

good luck with it anyhow bruda!!

[boomer]

The 12 month overseas licence law doesn't get reset every time you leave and enter teh country..! Busted

as for the plate.. i got done for the same except he said my bike wasn't upto standard for a wof. so i spent $20 for a new wof on a 6 month old bike and sent that in... job done.

speeding ticket.. well with the list of your excuses you submitted your likely to have non of the offenses revoked as you come across as clutching at straws. Busted .. is my vote.

good luck but i'd be prepared to take it on the chin.


and :rofl: at "Sorry officer... the wind made me go over the limit by 21k's... "

[skidMark]

Maybe thats his daughter in your profile pic, so he felt like revenge.


not much holding thems boobies in :|

[Cr1MiNaL]

The 12 month overseas licence law doesn't get reset every time you leave and enter teh country..! Busted

Actually it does get reset every time u exit the country and re-enter.
The LTSA web site states:

1. Must have a valid overseas license. (is valid till 2022).
2. Must be in english or need to have an english version legitimately translated. (not an issue).
3. must not have stayed in NZ more than 12 months at a stretch (I didn't).
4. resets for 1 year every time u exit and re-enter NZ. (re-entered after holiday in Feb 06).

U can ride/drive if these conditions are met.

and Cheers for ur views. Much appreciated.

[boomer]

Actually it does get reset every time u exit the country and re-enter.
The LTSA web site states:

1. Must have a valid overseas license. (is valid till 2022).
2. Must be in english or need to have an english version legitimately translated. (not an issue).
3. must not have stayed in NZ more than 12 months at a stretch (I didn't).
4. resets everytime u exit and re-enter NZ. (re-entered after holiday in Feb 06).

U can ride/drive if these conditions are met.

and Cheers for ur views. Much appreciated.

are you a nz resident? if so you might be flouting teh laws

still.. have fun

[marty]

If you do have a current overseas driver licence or international driving permit, you can drive using that for a maximum of 12 months from the date you arrive in New Zealand. (Note: if your overseas licence or permit isn't in English, you must carry an accurate translation. See Other information you need to know below for more information.)

Each time you visit New Zealand, you can drive for a further 12-month period on a valid overseas licence or international driving permit.

What happens after one year?

If you wish to drive after one year, you must first gain a New Zealand drive licence. We recommend you apply early to make sure you have a new licence before the one year is up.

from the LTSA website. must have changed recently - i guess the cumulative rule was too hard to police

[boomer]

If you do have a current overseas driver licence or international driving permit, you can drive using that for a maximum of 12 months from the date you arrive in New Zealand. (Note: if your overseas licence or permit isn't in English, you must carry an accurate translation. See Other information you need to know below for more information.)

Each time you visit New Zealand, you can drive for a further 12-month period on a valid overseas licence or international driving permit.

What happens after one year?

If you wish to drive after one year, you must first gain a New Zealand drive licence. We recommend you apply early to make sure you have a new licence before the one year is up.

from the LTSA website. must have changed recently - i guess the cumulative rule was too hard to police

yeah i just read that, it has changed recently. But the bit someone could argue if they so wished was 'visit' if your a resident then the terms of that residency is that NZ is home..

[Kittyhawk]

Good luck - but you are fighting with the law.

Will be interesting to see the outcome.

[Cr1MiNaL]

yeah i just read that, it has changed recently. But the bit someone could argue if they so wished was 'visit' if your a resident then the terms of that residency is that NZ is home..

TRUE, I'm just wondering if that is strong enough to win them the case...I'm hoping not... It was no biggie converting it (maybe they'll c that I have a full NZ now) and take pity?

[xgnr]

sorry to hear that buddy... How much was due to failing the "attitude" test ? (honest self appraisal required)...

[boomer]

who knows.. but what i do know is.

a) you must have pissed of said officer
b) when writing in to get of an offense you need to think logically and state facts.. i'm sure the 80 year olds at teh court have heard ALL the sympathy votes under the sun.

i use to show my UK licence all the time and state my entry date into NZ as the last time i arrived, i just happened to leave NZ every month with work... the coppers fell for it.. would a court or rather the old girl behind the counter... ? its not exactly crime of the century is it.

that being said.. you hear a lot of complaints on here about foreigners and there driving skills . so maybe you should get done as you fall into that category ;)

[Grahameeboy]

Well what do you expect on a rickshaw licence Raj......mind you the Police would have a field day if they stopped Kiwi's for driving on an inappropriate licence eh............

I wonder how it works that at the time of the offence you did not hold a converted licence..what licence gets pinged?

Anyway, don't get too smart with the system Raj........but as you have a digital speedo and if you were doing 111-112kph then a bit dubious about what the cop says but then it was windy/rainy and are you sure it was not 121kph and you just got the numbers wrong??

[Cr1MiNaL]

sorry to hear that buddy... How much was due to failing the "attitude" test ? (honest self appraisal required)...

Honestly I didnt get smart with him at all. Just did as he said. Asked why he was fining me. and that was it. even thanked him for the ticket (felt like kicking myself for it). but no I was neither rude nor arrogant. (its not in my nature).

[Cr1MiNaL]

Well what do you expect on a rickshaw licence Raj......

lol GB if u can ride in Indian conditions u can ride in any conditions mate ! I'm used to dodging everything under the sun :rockon:

[Grahameeboy]

that being said.. you hear a lot of complaints on here about foreigners and there driving skills . so maybe you should get done as you fall into that category ;)

That's right Kiwi drivers are the bees knees eh what.............always good to divert attention.

If he did not mention the licence the first time then this implyed to Raj that he was licenced, as he thought, so I reckon he could argue this in Court re the second stop.

Plate well it is readable..........Kiwifruits Dad was a lot worse and he won.

Speed, well cop v Raj so will have to take the rap on that but would be interesting, as I said earlier about applying points. May be able to avoid on first stop.....I did in my first year.

[Grahameeboy]

lol GB if u can ride in Indian conditions u can ride in any conditions mate ! I'm used to dodging everything under the sun :rockon:

Yeah those Indians are dodgy right..............:yes:

[The Lone Rider]

Speed I think you will have a hard time arguing.

Those other things are worth a shot.

At least you didn't get zinged all in one night for speeding and illegal bike mods. Yeap.. that $400 fine I got sucked balls.

[klyong82]

Didn't they use to have that rule to waive the $400 bucks if you sat your NZ licence within 28 days? You had to send proof that you passed your theory test etc to Police department. COuple of my friends had that. But really sucks Raj. That plate infringement is rediculous....looks normal to me

[Cr1MiNaL]

Didn't they use to have that rule to waive the $400 bucks if you sat your NZ licence within 28 days? You had to send proof that you passed your theory to Police department. But really sucks Raj. That plate infringement is rediculous....looks normal to me

I'm not too sure on that rule mate, i hope thats true? does anyone know?
The plate looked legit to me when I made it... and to 6 other officers also...

[0arbreaka]

and to 6 other officers also...

Mate your getting pulled over too much

[Cr1MiNaL]

Mate your getting pulled over too much

Naw I went in to the Takapuna Police station and asked officers there if they'd ticket my no plate... met 2 officers at the BP at Tristam ave when I was filling up and asked them also.. all said it was legit.

[spudchucka]

The rego plate and licence breach are BS, if the bureau doesn't flag them away you should take them to court.

[ajturbo]

That's right Kiwi drivers are the bees knees eh what.............always good to divert attention.


Plate well it is readable..........Kiwifruits Dad was a lot worse and he won.

.


Kiwifruit has a dad?

[pritch]

I'm not too sure on that rule mate, i hope thats true? does anyone know?


A couple of years ago a German guy of my aquaintance was stopped driving on an expired International Licence. He had to pay. He also had to get a New Zealand licence which presented him with problems because he lives out of town...

I took him out the application forms and a road code, how he managed the rest I have no idea.

[scumdog]

Naw I went in to the Takapuna Police station and asked officers there if they'd ticket my no plate... met 2 officers at the BP at Tristam ave when I was filling up and asked them also.. all said it was legit.


Mate, don't feel priveleged they picked on you about the plate - before I was doing this job I had a run-in with one of Lous ex-workmates (ex MOT Traffic Officer) who told me that bending up the bottom of the big-arse square number plate to fit my Sportsters Yankee number plate bracket was a no-no and if I didn't do something about it he would ticket me for it. (Kinda took the edge of THAT Christmas day I tells ya!)

Having said that you should be able to get off it (Where is the 'real' plate anyway?) as well as the NZ licence thing.


As far as the speeding ticket goes: "Son, you're on your own" (From the movie Blazing Saddles).

[dino3310]

stick it to the man bro, a good lawyer will cost more than the fines but when they give us a hard time i say stick to the man (legally of course),
take the speed fine and demerits on the chin but as for the rest stick it to da man.:rockon:

[mbazza]

Hi Raj. Like other opinions, looks like the speeding fine is yours, good luck with getting the other fines dismissed. Cheers.:2thumbsup

[MSTRS]

Actually it does get reset every time u exit the country and re-enter.
..... (re-entered after holiday in Feb 06).


my calendar suggests this was 18mths ago....

[Cr1MiNaL]

my calendar suggests this was 18mths ago....

yea I meant feb 07 aye.

[Patrick]

I'm not too sure on that rule mate, i hope thats true? does anyone know?
The plate looked legit to me when I made it... and to 6 other officers also...

Make it 7... or is that 8 or 9???

It is readable, show the photo provided and explain nothing been done since to rectify and other cops say it is fine. The licence thing is easy to prove too, show a copy of your passport with the arrival date in it. As for the speed.... ummmmm ......

[HungusMaximist]

Raj.

Wear yourself one of those fluro yellow safety vest and you'll be fine.

[avgas]

Taking 1 indian off the road at a time.
Sounds like my mate Tabesh - he would make the ultimate anti-indian cop.

[bobsmith]

So remind me again, why YOU are having to prove that you WERE NOT BREAKING THE LAW??? rather than THEM having to prove that you WERE BREAKING THE LAW???

Seems like a strange concept....

[Pancakes]

Dude The first time I saw your plate I thought it looked nice and tidy on the bike AND VERY VISIBLE! Easily seen from behind you in a car, on the side of the road or by a speed camera. It's a standard plate a? No bends or anything a? Not like mine! Hahahaha, a cop had to walk real close the other day to see it and didn't say anything! I haven't got a picture but it's got a few laughs from other riders thats for sure.

[gixermike]

So..officer dibble is wrong about the licence, wrong about the plate....but always spot on about the speed, with no chance he's just having a bad day....seems like a bit of a police get out...

"oh yeah..I was wrong about that bit....and that bit....but the rest...No question I'm 100% right"

Can no one else see a pattern forming....if you do bother with court it might be worth asking when he was last trained with the speed detection system...he's obviously forgotten the lesson about licences and plates....

Mind you, according to the latest advert you just didn't have your bee keeping hat on...then you'd be 100% safe....

I must eat....I'm getting grumpier.....

[Sanx]

So remind me again, why YOU are having to prove that you WERE NOT BREAKING THE LAW??? rather than THEM having to prove that you WERE BREAKING THE LAW???

Seems like a strange concept....

Because the age-old principle of innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt does not apply to motor offences. The Land Transport Act and its various amendments actually state what is required as proof of an offence, for instance:
Land Transport Act 1998 - Part 10 - Proceedings enforcing responsibilities
145 Evidence of approved vehicle surveillance equipment

1) In proceedings for a moving vehicle offence, an image produced by means of an exposure taken by approved vehicle surveillance equipment and showing or recording a motor vehicle on a road, the speed of the vehicle, the location of the vehicle, the colour or form of a traffic control device, and the date and time when the image was taken, or showing or recording any of those things, is, in the absence of proof to the contrary, sufficient evidence of that fact or event.
2) The production in proceedings for a moving vehicle offence of an image purporting to be an image referred to in subsection (1) is, in the absence of proof to the contrary, sufficient evidence that the image was produced by means of an exposure taken by approved vehicle surveillance equipment.

Which, roughly translated means that a cop can take a picture on his cellphone of you sitting in your car whilst parked, claim it's a photo taken with approved vehicle surveillance equipment and that you were doing 250kph, and it's up to you to prove that these things didn't happen. The legislation, contrary to the Bill of Rights, shifts the burden of proof onto the defendant. Again, it's something a good lawyer would probably be able to exploit, but I wouldn't want to have to pay his fees whilst he argued it.

Using the above section of the Land Transport Act, a photo simply showing your vehicle driving down the road can be treated as proof that you were doing almost anything. The truly odious part of the sentence is: or showing or recording any of those things. It means that, for instance, a photo of your vehicle on a road can be construed as proof of speeding, regardless of whether the image actually shows the speed of your vehicle as well. A cop merely has to state, under oath, that he observed you speeding and here's the proof and the magistrate won't even listen to any arguments to the contrary.

Worse still, magistrates will intrinsically believe a Police Officer in relation to motor offences where in any other case they'd demand actual evidence. The equipment in use by NZ Police contains absolutely no way of verifying anything after the fact:

Radar and laser guns have no auditing capability, to show when they were triggered and what speed was recorded at what point.
In-car radar systems are not connected to a camera of any sort, or have an audit log of their own, to show the same.
Police vehicles do not have cameras in them recording constantly.Despite the fact that such technology is available off the shelf and in use by other Police forces around the world, it has not become a mandatory requirement in NZ. This does allow the cops to basically get away with virtually any ticket they issue and, more serious in my view, instantly fosters a complete lack of trust in the Police by the general public. considering that motoring offences are the means by which most members of the public come into contact with the cops, is it any wonder that the Police's standing in the community has nosedived spectacularly since the counter-productive zealous speed-limit enforcement started?
Of course, such equipment is not going to help in every case, but the majority of incidences should require an element of proof by the Police instead of the defendant having to prove he did not commit the offence.

Section 146 of the Land Transport act also contains an interesting little snippet too:

In proceedings for [a speeding offence against any bylaws or enactment, any other offence against this Act, or an offence against the Road User Charges Act 1977], the production of a certificate (or a document purporting to be a copy of the certificate) purporting to be signed by a sworn or non-sworn member of the Police authorised for the purpose by the Commissioner or by a person authorised for the purpose by the Director, as to the testing and accuracy of any equipment or device to which this section applies that is referred to in the certificate, is, in the absence of [proof] to the contrary, sufficient proof that the equipment or device referred to was tested on the date specified in the certificate and was accurate on the date of the alleged offence.

It's a remarkable assumption to say that things like radar guns (especially in-car ones which are affected by the police vehicle speedometer calibration, tyre wear, tyre pressures and so on) are deemed to be accurate provided they have been tested within the previous twelve months. In the UK, items do have to be formally calibrated every twelve months, but the calibration must be confirmed by a series of manual calibration checks at the start of each shift, and proof of that must be provided. No competent engineer would trust a measuring device that was not calibrated on a regular basis, but it seems OK for the courts and government to expect the general public to.

[Cr1MiNaL]

Sanx that was a bloody informative post. Cheers. I am still awaiting a reply from the cop shop and when they do write back to me I shall post up the ruling here for everyones future reference.

[Patrick]

"oh yeah..I was wrong about that bit....and that bit....but the rest...No question I'm 100% right"

Can no one else see a pattern forming....if you do bother with court it might be worth asking when he was last trained with the speed detection system...he's obviously forgotten the lesson about licences and plates....

Mind you, according to the latest advert you just didn't have your bee keeping hat on...then you'd be 100% safe....

I must eat....I'm getting grumpier.....

Get some tossed, and throw in the call he is anti motorbikes might have them all tossed... I would consider a PCA or a direct chat with his supervisor.

He is very experienced and well trained but going from other posts, he may be anti motorbikes.

[scumdog]

Sanx that was a bloody informative post. Cheers. I am still awaiting a reply from the cop shop and when they do write back to me I shall post up the ruling here for everyones future reference.

Sanx is also paranoid - as are about a third of KB.

[Cr1MiNaL]

Get some tossed, and throw in the call he is anti motorbikes might have them all tossed... I would consider a PCA or a direct chat with his supervisor.

He is very experienced and well trained but going from other posts, he may be anti motorbikes.

Whats a PCA Patrick? Also should I be sitting tight waiting for their reply in the post, or should I get on to calling his C/O like u suggest. Also I've heard he is the C/O !! so who do I call regarding him then? Or will my calling just aggravate him further... coz I really don't want a well trained, professional anti-bike cop on ma arse... seriously !

[Max Preload]

Because the age-old principle of innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt does not apply to motor offences.

I recall hearing that at the time of the introduction of instant fines for infringment offences, a number Ministry of Handsports traffic cops quit in protest, which ironically left only those with dubious consciences. :shit:

Bit of a double whammy there for the motoring public...

[Max Preload]

Whats a PCA Patrick?

Police Complaints Authority?

[scumdog]

I recall hearing that at the time of the introduction of instant fines for infringment offences, a number Ministry of Handsports traffic cops quit in protest, which ironically left only those with dubious consciences. :shit:

Bit of a double whammy there for the motoring public...

But not this member of the 'motoring public'.

Only paid 'taxes' to the tune of $400 or less over 35+ years.

[peasea]

Going to work in the rain 7.30 am in the recent wind that just hit Auckland blown all over the m-way was doing 111-112kmph spotted marked police car didn't try n slow down as I was swerving way too much... he pulls me over shows me speed of 121! issues me $175 ticket and 35 demerits (1km over the 20 demerit range) same time says my no plate is not displayed in the appropriate manner and fines me another $200 for it...im still asking him why he cant read it when I can...(were sitting in his cruiser as its raining.) total of $375 that morning. I took tickets and rode to work.

12 days later same place, same cop, unmarked honda accord this time. I wasn't speeding after my recent fines was pretty broke. Still pulls me over, recognizes me, asks for license. I give him same license he ticketed me on 12 days ago, (overseas valid license, I came back to NZ in feb so its valid till next feb). Says its not valid and gives me $400 for riding on an inappropriate license.

Leaves to go to an accident up at the Orewa lights, offers no explanations.. I'm standing there dumbfounded. Since I have had my license converted to a NZ full... did that 2 days later. Put that in my appeal letter too.

I'm appealing the following:
$200 number plate fine,
$400 overseas license fine and
also requesting the 35 demerits be reduced to 20 demerits as its over by just 1km! and cud have been error (weather,fog,inaccurate instrument calibration or wind even?). I've written to them, but feel i will mostly have to fight it out in court...

Resident :Police: and fellow knowledgeable members I really do appreciate your responses...


Cheers and thanks in advance.

Buy a gun and shoot the fuck.

[peasea]

Because the age-old principle of innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt does not apply to motor offences. The Land Transport Act and its various amendments actually state what is required as proof of an offence, for instance:
Land Transport Act 1998 - Part 10 - Proceedings enforcing responsibilities
145 Evidence of approved vehicle surveillance equipment

1) In proceedings for a moving vehicle offence, an image produced by means of an exposure taken by approved vehicle surveillance equipment and showing or recording a motor vehicle on a road, the speed of the vehicle, the location of the vehicle, the colour or form of a traffic control device, and the date and time when the image was taken, or showing or recording any of those things, is, in the absence of proof to the contrary, sufficient evidence of that fact or event.
2) The production in proceedings for a moving vehicle offence of an image purporting to be an image referred to in subsection (1) is, in the absence of proof to the contrary, sufficient evidence that the image was produced by means of an exposure taken by approved vehicle surveillance equipment.

Which, roughly translated means that a cop can take a picture on his cellphone of you sitting in your car whilst parked, claim it's a photo taken with approved vehicle surveillance equipment and that you were doing 250kph, and it's up to you to prove that these things didn't happen. The legislation, contrary to the Bill of Rights, shifts the burden of proof onto the defendant. Again, it's something a good lawyer would probably be able to exploit, but I wouldn't want to have to pay his fees whilst he argued it.

Using the above section of the Land Transport Act, a photo simply showing your vehicle driving down the road can be treated as proof that you were doing almost anything. The truly odious part of the sentence is: or showing or recording any of those things. It means that, for instance, a photo of your vehicle on a road can be construed as proof of speeding, regardless of whether the image actually shows the speed of your vehicle as well. A cop merely has to state, under oath, that he observed you speeding and here's the proof and the magistrate won't even listen to any arguments to the contrary.

Worse still, magistrates will intrinsically believe a Police Officer in relation to motor offences where in any other case they'd demand actual evidence. The equipment in use by NZ Police contains absolutely no way of verifying anything after the fact:

Radar and laser guns have no auditing capability, to show when they were triggered and what speed was recorded at what point.
In-car radar systems are not connected to a camera of any sort, or have an audit log of their own, to show the same.
Police vehicles do not have cameras in them recording constantly.Despite the fact that such technology is available off the shelf and in use by other Police forces around the world, it has not become a mandatory requirement in NZ. This does allow the cops to basically get away with virtually any ticket they issue and, more serious in my view, instantly fosters a complete lack of trust in the Police by the general public. considering that motoring offences are the means by which most members of the public come into contact with the cops, is it any wonder that the Police's standing in the community has nosedived spectacularly since the counter-productive zealous speed-limit enforcement started?
Of course, such equipment is not going to help in every case, but the majority of incidences should require an element of proof by the Police instead of the defendant having to prove he did not commit the offence.

Section 146 of the Land Transport act also contains an interesting little snippet too:

In proceedings for [a speeding offence against any bylaws or enactment, any other offence against this Act, or an offence against the Road User Charges Act 1977], the production of a certificate (or a document purporting to be a copy of the certificate) purporting to be signed by a sworn or non-sworn member of the Police authorised for the purpose by the Commissioner or by a person authorised for the purpose by the Director, as to the testing and accuracy of any equipment or device to which this section applies that is referred to in the certificate, is, in the absence of [proof] to the contrary, sufficient proof that the equipment or device referred to was tested on the date specified in the certificate and was accurate on the date of the alleged offence.

It's a remarkable assumption to say that things like radar guns (especially in-car ones which are affected by the police vehicle speedometer calibration, tyre wear, tyre pressures and so on) are deemed to be accurate provided they have been tested within the previous twelve months. In the UK, items do have to be formally calibrated every twelve months, but the calibration must be confirmed by a series of manual calibration checks at the start of each shift, and proof of that must be provided. No competent engineer would trust a measuring device that was not calibrated on a regular basis, but it seems OK for the courts and government to expect the general public to.

Ever thought of charging for this in a court of law? You seem to have a handle on it. Bling sent.

[peasea]

But not this member of the 'motoring public'.

Only paid 'taxes' to the tune of $400 or less over 35+ years.

Yeah, but you've got contacts, right?

[scumdog]

Yeah, but you've got contacts, right?

D'you really think I've been this job all this time since I was 15?????

[Cr1MiNaL]

U used to sell before this ??? :shutup:

[Kickaha]

Only paid 'taxes' to the tune of $400 or less over 35+ years.

Once I catch up to you (in 7years) I'll let you know how I get on, I'm only up to $340 in 28 years, it's all about picking the time and place :yes:

[BMW]

should have asked when his cert was carried out on the radar.

But good luck fighting them. Some are complete wankers and some are really good!

[Cr1MiNaL]

should have asked when his cert was carried out on the radar.

But good luck fighting them. Some are complete wankers and some are really good!

Hi yes I have asked for various documents to be sent to me and hence theyre taking a while to write back to me. Hopefully Ive shown them reason and theyll just wave the whole thing. But otherwise Im ready to take this to court. I agree some officers are way kewl. didnt bust me for 62 in a 50 coz i was riding safely !! legends.

[Cr1MiNaL]

Now this is why you people should not listen to internet lawyers.
Since when is RADAR affected by a police cars tyre pressures, speedo calibration, tyre wear etc?? lol
All your information you painstakingly provided was interesting until that last paragraph, which discredited the rest.
RADAR has nothing whatsoever to do with the vehicle in which it is mounted. If you are referring to the "own speed" displayed on the units readout, i.e. the police cars speed at time of radar activation, then you are mistaken. The "own speed" is also calculated by radar reflection from innate objects in its beam. It is not "connected" to the speedometer/tyres/whatever.




:gob::shit::mellow:

[Max Preload]

Now this is why you people should not listen to internet lawyers.
Since when is RADAR affected by a police cars tyre pressures, speedo calibration, tyre wear etc?? lol
All your information you painstakingly provided was interesting until that last paragraph, which discredited the rest.
RADAR has nothing whatsoever to do with the vehicle in which it is mounted. If you are referring to the "own speed" displayed on the units readout, i.e. the police cars speed at time of radar activation, then you are mistaken. The "own speed" is also calculated by radar reflection from innate objects in its beam. It is not "connected" to the speedometer/tyres/whatever.

I think more a grammatical error than mistakenly stating the patrol speed displayed is from a mechanical device. And it's inanimate, not innate.

[peasea]

D'you really think I've been this job all this time since I was 15?????

Can't you get them overturned retrospectively? With full refunds....?

[scumdog]

Now this is why you people should not listen to internet lawyers.
Since when is RADAR affected by a police cars tyre pressures, speedo calibration, tyre wear etc?? lol
All your information you painstakingly provided was interesting until that last paragraph, which discredited the rest.
RADAR has nothing whatsoever to do with the vehicle in which it is mounted. If you are referring to the "own speed" displayed on the units readout, i.e. the police cars speed at time of radar activation, then you are mistaken. The "own speed" is also calculated by radar reflection from inanimate objects in its beam. It is not "connected" to the speedometer/tyres/whatever.

Aw c'mon dude - stop ruining myths, common fallacies and inaccurate technical information....you're shattering all their hopes.

[Max Preload]

Not quite sure what you mean here? The patrol speed isn't from a mechanical device, it also utilises the radar.

I know the microwave also give the patrol speed. I think you'll find he was merely formatting the message and it got a little muddled. Done it myself plenty of times, and that was a BIG post.

In any case microwave speed detection is not infallible - there have been cases where this has been demonstrated. Interference is a big problem in built up areas. I recall someone successfully arguing that the ticket he received was invalid by virtue of the fact the location of the PR100 camera was unsuitable due to the environment.

[pzkpfw]

(Where is the 'real' plate anyway?)

Back when I worked at motor-reg I learned if it's not a 'real' plate it's not really legal.

Those cars with painted-on 'plates' are illegal. Even magnetic stick-on (dealer) plates that looked just like the real thing were illegal.

[swbarnett]

Sanx is also paranoid - as are about a third of KB.
Paranoia relies on the fact that the fear is unfounded. This is as yet unproven.

[scumdog]

Back when I worked at motor-reg I learned if it's not a 'real' plate it's not really legal.

Those cars with painted-on 'plates' are illegal. Even magnetic stick-on (dealer) plates that looked just like the real thing were illegal.

True - those E-types etc are only relying on kind discretion to get away with it - as do bikers with white-plastic-and-Letraset number plates.

[scumdog]

Paranoia relies on the fact that the fear is unfounded. This is as yet unproven.

When I ride I'm anonymous, it's not like I have cloak of invinvibilty on so why am I not paranoid or fearful of tickets

My hot-rod and classic cars stand out yet once I leave town I'm 'just another motorist' - and very conspicuous yet I am not paranoid but people claim cops 'target' modified vehicles or those that look like they have 'wealthy' owners .

Why is this??

[Max Preload]

When I ride I'm anonymous, it's not like I have cloak of invinvibilty on so why am I not paranoid or fearful of tickets

My hot-rod and classic cars stand out yet once I leave town I'm 'just another motorist' - and very conspicuous yet I am not paranoid but people claim cops 'target' modified vehicles or those that look like they have 'wealthy' owners .

Why is this??

I guess you know you're not working at those times so there's nothing to fear...

[scumdog]

I guess you know you're not working at those times so there's nothing to fear...

Please elucidate.......or are you toungue-in-cheek.?

[swbarnett]

When I ride I'm anonymous, it's not like I have cloak of invinvibilty on so why am I not paranoid or fearful of tickets
Some of the fears expressed in here may be unfounded, meaning that the person is indeed paranoid. Some of the fears may be justified, meaning that the person is quite sane and not paranoid at all.

It all comes down to whether the perceived threat is real or imaginary.

[scumdog]

Some of the fears expressed in here may be unfounded, meaning that the person is indeed paranoid. Some of the fears may be justified, meaning that the person is quite sane and not paranoid at all.

It all comes down to whether the perceived threat is real or imaginary.


My 'perceived threat' is others on the road other than Police.

The chance one of the latter wiping you off the face of the earth is considerably less than the risk the other slack jawed cretins on the road cleaning you up.

Not too many people get physically maimed by a speeding ticket.

[jimbo600]

Not too many people get physically maimed by a speeding ticket.

I have. the handbrake went postal after I got the last one.

[Cr1MiNaL]

:Offtopic: all of u. Stop ur bickering, this thread was started to understand the legalities and not for all this BS. Lets keep it clean for future reference. Thanks.:angry:

[peasea]

I have. the handbrake went postal after I got the last one.


I got a paper cut off one in the 70's. Pissed me right off, I bled all over my MkIII Zephyr's interior.

[swbarnett]

Not too many people get physically maimed by a speeding ticket.
You are of course correct but I'd rather be maimed in a free society than healthy in a totalitarian regime.

[Pancakes]

I'm voting for "free enough and reasonably healthy"!




If you sit on the fence long enough your legs go numb and it stops hurting!

[Sanx]

Now this is why you people should not listen to internet lawyers.
Since when is RADAR affected by a police cars tyre pressures, speedo calibration, tyre wear etc?? lol
All your information you painstakingly provided was interesting until that last paragraph, which discredited the rest.
RADAR has nothing whatsoever to do with the vehicle in which it is mounted. If you are referring to the "own speed" displayed on the units readout, i.e. the police cars speed at time of radar activation, then you are mistaken. The "own speed" is also calculated by radar reflection from inanimate objects in its beam. It is not "connected" to the speedometer/tyres/whatever.

Is it? I very much doubt that for a number of reasons:
Radar generally has to lock on something to record a speed. I don't know whether or not police radar units have the ability to lock and track multiple objects simultaneously, but if they could, it would bring every speeding ticket where there was more than one car in the vicinty into question, as the police would have no way of knowing which vehicle's speed the unit was displaying at the time. How does the unit know what objects in the vicinity are stationary in any given environment? Considering radar needs to reflect off something (and preferably something solid / metallic) what objects does the unit use as a reference point where there is nothing in the environment big or reflective enough to use as a stationary reference point; for instance, on the Desert Road?

I also know for an absolute fact that similar units in the UK are wired into the speedo (OK, the gearbox output shaft speed sensor, that drives the speedo). That provides the fixed reference point, and for that reason, all cars must undergo a speedo calibration routine at the start of each shift using a calibrated stopwatch against a measured mile. Any deviance is then dialled into the radar unit.

There are really only two ways of measuring speed; time/distance and doppler shift. Police issue radar and laser guns use both of these techniques together - it's how they get speed and distance readings (i.e. car was doing 112kph when it was 184 metres away). Where a measuring unit is mounted on a moving vehicle, the speed of the vehicle must be known in order to calculate the speed of the object being measured. Simple physics.

Now, I'm happy to be proved wrong over the technicalities of how in-car radar units measure their own speed. However, until someone provides me with those details including how they overcome some pretty interesting technical obstacles (rather than just saying you're wrong, it does it this way), I'm going to assume the designers of such systems simply made the obvious technical choice - to hook into the speed measuring system in the vehicle itself.

[scumdog]

You are of course correct but I'd rather be maimed in a free society than healthy in a totalitarian regime.


Why?
Does the physical and financial pain hurt less?
And if so how?

[Sanx]

<snip>

Thanks for the response, Speedie. I'm not totally ignorant on the workings of radar; the concept of radar was explained to me by my grand-father of all people. He was one of the research team working for the British army in 1940/41 that developed radar's precursor, RDF. They could get speed and bearing quite well, but had trouble with altitude and distance. Only with the development of radar did the distance bit come into it as well.

I do also know radar does not have to reflect of metallic or even particularly solid surfaces (e.g. rain radar) but I was under the impression that the objects needed to be angled as to bounce back the transmissions to the sender; the same principle stealth airplanes use to hide themselves from radar (or at least, reduce their radar footprint). What I didn't consider was that when you're talking mm-band radio (assuming they use Ka-band here, which I think they do) an otherwise smooth road surface isn't actually all that flat.

You give some interesting facts about the operation of the police radar units, especially in relation to the target / fastest speed display. The first ever ticket I got in NZ was for doing 146 down SH1. I queried the device in use and how it locked onto targets, mainly as I knew I was doing more like 170 at the time. It may be that the radar technology has changed since then, but I did have a written response from the relevant office stating that the unit tracks one vehicle and one vehicle only, and cannot show multiple speeds. They could have been lying, of course.

And I knew about rain scatter ... though I think using that to get of a ticket would be quite difficult. It might make getting a locked reading difficult, but once achieved, I guess you're pretty much stuffed.

[boomer]

Didnt mean to sound condescending, was mainly making it simple and clear for some readers who may not know about such things... saves further questioning by others!...

i got lost at 'preface':mellow:

[McJim]

so when are the yanks/japs going to unveil the stealth sprotbike?

GSX117R?

[Max Preload]

I do also know radar does not have to reflect of metallic or even particularly solid surfaces (e.g. rain radar) but I was under the impression that the objects needed to be angled as to bounce back the transmissions to the sender

There's always going to be something perpendicular to the waveform for a signal to return, albeit a weak one. I don't think the waveform is square either (althought the newer digital ones might be), so part of it will always be perpendicular to the target also.


The first ever ticket I got in NZ was for doing 146 down SH1. I queried the device in use and how it locked onto targets, mainly as I knew I was doing more like 170 at the time. It may be that the radar technology has changed since then, but I did have a written response from the relevant office stating that the unit tracks one vehicle and one vehicle only, and cannot show multiple speeds. They could have been lying, of course.

That would likely have been with the older 50mW Hawk units - how long ago?. The reason for the low reading may have been what is referred to as the COSINE effect (the adjacent side of the vector triangle is registered speed - finally all those hours of high school trigonometry pays off lol) because the target direction is not accounted for in the mircowave units, so unless you're moving directly towards the unit your speed will register low (advantage target!). Although it may have just not acquired a lockable signal fast enough, because that speed difference would have required quite a significant angle to the patrol direction.

The current (I believe) Stalker DSR units can track 2 targets simultaneously and patrol speed and direct relative to patrol (limited to behind or in front). There is PATROL speed, STRONGEST signal and FASTEST signal readouts, each indicating orientation to the patrol i.e.fastest behind, strongest in front of patrol etc. and I *think* there is no lock for strongest (perhaps one of our resident donut munchers can advise on that aspect). How the readout is interpreted and assigned to any particular vehicle is down to the operator competence and/or any underlying need to fill quota. :gob:

[Renegade]

It's a remarkable assumption to say that things like radar guns (especially in-car ones which are affected by the police vehicle speedometer calibration, tyre wear, tyre pressures and so on)

Are you sure? even if police car is parked and the radar on stationary mode? i think your wrong.



are deemed to be accurate provided they have been tested within the previous twelve months. In the UK, items do have to be formally calibrated every twelve months, but the calibration must be confirmed by a series of manual calibration checks at the start of each shift, and proof of that must be provided. .

So do the nz police radars, every shift they are used, and fill in the log book after testing is complete.

paranoia, paranoia, everybodies coming to get me!!

[Sanx]

Are you sure? even if police car is parked and the radar on stationary mode? i think your wrong.

Well obviously not, as it should have been blatantly obvious by the comment I made. I was refering to situations in which the car is moving and, should you have read the thread, I've already been told I was wrong by Speedie as it is the radar unit itself that measures the vehicle's speed rather than simply taking a read from the car's own speedo.


So do the nz police radars, every shift they are used, and fill in the log book after testing is complete.

Really. Very interesting, as I have a letter dated yesterday that states precisely the opposite.


Logs demonstrating the laser speed measuring device was calibrated at the start of the shift cannot be supplied. There is no requirement for officers to calibrate the measuring device and therefore no such check was performed.

So who's wrong?


paranoia, paranoia, everybodies coming to get me!!

Everybody's. If you're going to take the piss, at least do it grammatically.

[davereid]

Police radar cannot really be compared to the radar used on boats or at airports etc. Other than the fact they rely on a reflected signal from a target, they are completely different.

Boat radar works by sending a short pulse of energy. By measuring the time for the signal to travel to a target and return you know how far away it is. And as you have a very directional antenna, you know what direction it is. To calculate speed, you need to measure the distance to the target, wait a period of time and measure it again.

So.. boat radar can see lots of targets, and distinguish betwwn them as it can measure distance, and direction.

Police radar uses doppler shift techniques. With doppler shift you transmit energy at a known frequency, and you measure the frequency of the refleted signal.

This gives you instant data on target speed. But, you don't know what your tarket is. You only roughly know the direction, and you have no idea at all of the distance to the target.

And if you have two targets with the same relative speed towards the radar, regardless of difference in distance you will see only one. (Which one is a guess !)

While police regularly use radar in traffic, from a technical point of view, its not really good enough to use when there are multiple targets.

Look at my web page www.eslnz.com/radar.html for a better explanation.

[Cr1MiNaL]

Everybody's. If you're going to take the piss, at least do it grammatically.

lol actually its "Everybodys' " the ' before the s shows possession :) .. but never mind.

[mbazza]

Thanks for the link to your website. Very good information clearly explained. Thanks. Cheers.:rockon:

[Sanx]

lol actually its "Everybodys' " the ' before the s shows possession :) .. but never mind.

No it doesn't, you cheeky bugger. "Everybody's" either means belonging to everybody or everybody is, depending on context. Everybodys' means - literally - belonging to everybodys.

[Pancakes]

so when are the yanks/japs going to unveil the stealth sprotbike?

GSX117R?

From the link below; U.S. F117A Nighthawks, also known as Stealth fighters, swoop largely undetected through radar because their "radar-invisible" paint and angular exterior minimize reflected signals.

http://www.sandia.gov/isrc/F117.html

[scumdog]

From the link below; U.S. F117A Nighthawks, also known as Stealth fighters, swoop largely undetected through radar because their "radar-invisible" paint and angular exterior minimize reflected signals.

http://www.sandia.gov/isrc/F117.html

Speaking of such, did anybody seeee the Mythbusters episode where they tried everything the knew of to beat a radar - and didn't??

Some of the ideas and devices were hilarious, I couldn't believe there was so many old-wives tales about how to beat a radar out there - and people believed them!:gob:

[swbarnett]

Why?
Does the physical and financial pain hurt less?
And if so how?
Because I value my freedom and ability to think over and above my ability to walk. If I had to choose between a dabilitating brain disease and quadraplegia it'd be quadraplegia every time.

[swbarnett]

It doesnt take long for it to figure out what is "stationary".
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it the doppler effect can only show you how fast an object is moving relative to you, not it's absolute speed. The speed of the vehicle changes the emitted and received frequency.

[jimbo600]

Speaking of such, did anybody seeee the Mythbusters episode where they tried everything the knew of to beat a radar - and didn't??

Some of the ideas and devices were hilarious, I couldn't believe there was so many old-wives tales about how to beat a radar out there - and people believed them!:gob:

I think it was about beating laser as opposed to radar, and yeah some of the myths were amazing if not downright idiotic. I mean who the hell would drive with a mirror ball hanging from the rear view mirror. And CD's sheeit. I see cars in NZ with CDs all over them. How the crap do they think that that is going to work.

[Jantar]

And CD's sheeit. I see cars in NZ with CDs all over them. How the crap do they think that that is going to work.
A CD is designed as a laser reflector, so having CDs all over the car will make it easier to give the cop's laser a target. I'm sure that the HP appreciate the help. :yes:

[Pancakes]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it the doppler effect can only show you how fast an object is moving relative to you, not it's absolute speed. The speed of the vehicle changes the emitted and received frequency.

Yeah dude, the units "brain" would say that the objects to the extreme left and right must be the side of the road or that the big flat think it sees infront is the road (or that it might see 100 objects, 40 cars, and 60 houses, trees, signs some road etc and assume all those things doing the same speed are doing 0km/h) and will use the relative speed compared to whatever that thing is it is programmed to see as the surroundings as the police vehicle speed then the target actual speed is easily calculated. IE, Cop car is doing 95km/h compared to all the not moving things around it and the target is doing 20km/h away from the cop car the target is doing 115km/h.

Did you even read any bit of the stacks of information about this in the thread?

[Pancakes]

A CD is designed as a laser reflector, so having CDs all over the car will make it easier to give the cop's laser a target. I'm sure that the HP appreciate the help. :yes:

I think laser uses the same system that they use for measuring how close the moon is etc, if you have a laser and lens at one point and turn it on it takes a set amount of time for the light to travel and hit an object (and twice that time before someone at the same place as the laser see's it). So all you need to do is have a pulsed laser and timer, if the thing the laser is hitting is getting closer at a set rate every 100th of a second (or whatever the pulse rate is for a laser gun) it must be getting closer at that speed. I haven't included that maths cos the speed of light and all that is boring.

[Patrick]

should I get on to calling his C/O like u suggest. Also I've heard he is the C/O !!

Yes, and ask for his supervisor, a Senior Sergeant or his Sergeant (I don't think he has been promoted yet... he is a Senior Constable.)


I recall hearing that at the time of the introduction of instant fines for infringment offences, a number Ministry of Handsports traffic cops quit in protest, which ironically left only those with dubious consciences. :shit:

They then became meter maids...


Police Radar units have two target speeds...

Not bad... sounds like that....

First off, although a metallic surface is a good reflector of radar, it is by no means necassary.... In the case of Desert road... it reflects off the road in front....

I heard cats eyes can reflect a signal too... there are lots of those on the Desert..

In heavy rain it is VERY difficult for the police to use there radar equipment because or rain clutter.. or the radar reflecting back off the rain drops..

Unless it is stationary. But if heavy rain, even stationary won't work.


So do the nz police radars, every shift they are used, and fill in the log book after testing is complete.

Once a day.... three shifts in a day, but only once a day...


Really. Very interesting, as I have a letter dated yesterday that states precisely the opposite. So who's wrong?

Radar or laser? Radar needs to be tested daily, that day if used that day....

[Renegade]

Once a day.... three shifts in a day, but only once a day...[/B]

Radar or laser? Radar needs to be tested daily, that day if used that day....

The log book is there, might as well test the device, be it radar or laser, at least that way you can stand up in court and say "i tested it and it was working fine", cant rely on other people.

[Max Preload]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it the doppler effect can only show you how fast an object is moving relative to you, not it's absolute speed. The speed of the vehicle changes the emitted and received frequency.


The reason for the low reading may have been what is referred to as the COSINE effect (the adjacent side of the vector triangle is registered speed - finally all those hours of high school trigonometry pays off lol) because the target direction is not accounted for in the mircowave units, so unless you're moving directly towards the unit your speed will register low (advantage target!).

Perhaps I could have explained that better. Yes, only your speed towards the patrol (or more correctly the source of the microwave) is calculated with the doppler effect.

[Max Preload]

I recall hearing that at the time of the introduction of instant fines for infringment offences, a number Ministry of Handsports traffic cops quit in protest, which ironically left only those with dubious consciences. :shit:

They then became meter maids...


I suddenly have so much more respect for meter maids.

[swbarnett]

Did you even read any bit of the stacks of information about this in the thread?
Yes, I did. I read it to mean a single object, not an aggregate of multiple. Thanks for the reply, this makes sense.


Perhaps I could have explained that better. Yes, only your speed towards the patrol (or more correctly the source of the microwave) is calculated with the doppler effect.
Are you saying that the radar is not used to calculate the speed of the source vehicle? i.e what pancakes said about the majority of objects being stationary?

[Max Preload]

Are you saying that the radar is not used to calculate the speed of the source vehicle? i.e what pancakes said about the majority of objects being stationary?

No - that's not what I'm saying. I'm sure that the patrol vehicle display is from the microwave unit, not a mechanical input. What I'm saying is that your relative speed towards the patrol is what is displayed. That is to say if travelling at a direction of 45 deg to the patrol doing 100km/h it will only register 71km/h (cosine effect) because that is your closing speed directly towards the patrol.

[scumdog]

No - that's not what I'm saying. I'm sure that the patrol vehicle display is from the microwave unit, not a mechanical input. What I'm saying is that your relative speed towards the patrol is what is displayed. That is to say if travelling at a direction of 45 deg to the patrol doing 100km/h it will only register 71km/h (cosine effect) because that is your closing speed directly towards the patrol.


We're well aware of the cosine effect.

What it means then is that should you get 'pinged' coming around the corner towards the cop and are exceeding the speed limit then the reading MAY be slower than your actual speed, ergo you're on a 'win' in that situation since your ticket will be for a lesser speed than you were actually doing.

:wait::wait::wait:

[Max Preload]

We're well aware of the cosine effect.

Clearly not everyone is. You assume to much.

[swbarnett]

No - that's not what I'm saying. I'm sure that the patrol vehicle display is from the microwave unit, not a mechanical input. What I'm saying is that your relative speed towards the patrol is what is displayed. That is to say if travelling at a direction of 45 deg to the patrol doing 100km/h it will only register 71km/h (cosine effect) because that is your closing speed directly towards the patrol.
Now that I rethink it your original statement can be read this way and that's probably what you meant. All make sense now. Thanks.

[Patrick]

I suddenly have so much more respect for meter maids.

Nah, they hated that and came back as HP... with a vengance...