Busted? Help!

[Edbear]

I agree.

3 X large bottles of DB on an empty stomach after work one day = 340mg.

Your result may vary.


Mmmm! I think my alcohol tolerance would see me too drunk to drive at that...

I have had one "standard" size bottle after work on Friday's but wouldn't have any more. Much more satisfying to have a couple after mowing the lawn on the weekend when hot!

[Patrick]

You two are missing the point (probably deliberately considering your both :Police:)
How scummy knows 3x large DB's on an empty stomach = 340mg is more to the point here , was this done as a scientific research assignment for the :Police: ??:blank:
Or what was blown into the machine on the side of the road while you were shitting bricks :bleh:

:corn::corn:

We got the point, you missed it though....

340 for him after more than two litres of beer shows how much one has to drink to be over. Results will vary person to person, but it takes a lot more than just one or two drinks with dinner to put you over....

[spudchucka]

Mmmm! I think my alcohol tolerance would see me too drunk to drive at that...

When I've tested myself as mentioned above there is no way in hell that I would have considered driving home but I've still blown under the limit???

[scumdog]

When I've tested myself as mentioned above there is no way in hell that I would have considered driving home but I've still blown under the limit???


Blingo!
Exactly my thoughts at the time - "How can anybody consider themselves fit to drive in this condition let alone with an even higher breath-alcohol level?"

Workmates have echoed that too.

[scumdog]

You two are missing the point (probably deliberately considering your both :Police:)
How scummy knows 3x large DB's on an empty stomach = 340mg is more to the point here , was this done as a scientific research assignment for the :Police: ??:blank:
Or what was blown into the machine on the side of the road while you were shitting bricks :bleh:

:corn::corn:

A deliberate test one day to see how much one has to drink to be over.

I drank those bottles over an hour or so after work and when I felt I was well and truly over the limit I tested myself with the above result.

[FJRider]

BEWARE... Most Insurance companies state, their policys are void if the claimant was "under the influence of alcohol". That does NOT mean, was over the legal limit. If the reading is over 0, you are under the influence, NOT insured, and may be liable for damage YOU caused. Even if it wasn't YOUR fault.
If you do drink and then drive, AVOID anything expensive !!!

[FJRider]

there are riders that don't accept that riding a motorcycle comes with it's own set of risks.

It's very subjective as to how far you go and what method you use to do the mitigation.

I'm not advocating using the road for my own extreme sport (200kph in an urban area is just plain stupid).

I've never had an accident that wasn't at least partially my own fault and I've never been injured or injured anyone else as a result of an accident (unless you count a grazed knee).

I don't believe in negotiating with kidnappers. The only long term solution is to show them that it won't work.

There's an expression "Putting an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff". Personally I'd rather have an ambulance at the bottom than a line of cops at the top blocking the view.

Most people would far rather take the freeby and just don't understand what it's costing them. This is a consequence of evolution trying to keep us alive be reducing the amount of energy required.

Maybe we're not too dissimilar after all. I will admit to being somewhat of an idealist.

I do. I just don't accept that the speed I happen to be doing should be the sole determining factor in this from a legal standpoint.



Motorcycling is dangerous. The risks anybody takes is their choice ALONE... and THEIRS the responsibility.

If they are aware of what their actions may RESULT in, MITIGATION will never be an issue.

SOME DO !!!

ALL accidents can be blamed PARTIALLY on one's OWN self. Not watching, not noticing, Not thinking. Not EXPECTING...
EXPERIENCE helps...a bit.

I am familar with A&E. Scars to show (prove) it.My blood group is O neg. I do donate and have ACCEPTED donations (just was not aware of it at the time(s) )

I'm ex army, we had methods of dealing with THOSE people...

I'd rather have the ambulance FOLLOWING.

Not evolution, just LAZY, and no, they DON'T realise, maybe never will... Their loss.

NOTHING wrong with ideals, keeps ya HUMAN.

I try to ride safe myself. 1200cc motorcycles make this difficult (at times), and from a legal standpoint, at this time, it is.

EVERYBODY..... IF EVERYONE RIDES TO/WITHIN THEIR OWN ABILITY, MORE OF US WILL LIVE TO OLD AGE. SOME WILL DIE. (sad fact of life) TRY HARD FOR IT NOT TO BE YOU !!!

Please ride safe. AND TAKE CARE !!!

[hospitalfood]

well, this thread started with me getting done for speeding.

went to court today. all i have to pay is court costs

[scumdog]

well, this thread started with me getting done for speeding.

went to court today. all i have to pay is court costs

Lucky you live in the soft North eh?

Down here you may well not have been so lucky...

[hospitalfood]

i had a good case, but my main point is :- fight !

if you get done, well you probably asked for it. but so what !
we all do the best we can to pay as little tax as possible.....but when it comes to tickets some get all moralistic and say dumb working class shit like "do the crime, do the time".......suckers !

i just got let off a $510.00 speeding ticket, thanks to good advice and support from fellow KB members ( one in particular ).

so wise up you losers who take it like a bitch, fight the revenue gathering quota system.

[Mrs Busa Pete]

Two bikes booked on one reading??!
its worth fighting ;)


No it's not pete fought his one but lost and anyway buy the time it got to court he had his licence back anyway.

[kiwifruit]

No it's not pete fought his one but lost and anyway buy the time it got to court he had his licence back anyway.

he must fight like a girl

[swbarnett]

No it's not pete fought his one but lost ...
A negative outcome does not mean the fight was unwarranted.

[hospitalfood]

its not about winning or losing.......its how you play the game.
fight it !

[Max Preload]

he must fight like a girl

You mean naked in a paddling pool filled with jelly?

[jafar]

You mean naked in a paddling pool filled with jelly?

When you meet pete you will realise how seriously unfunny that visual is :sick:

:sunny:

[bully]

so, how did you get off, what was the way round it?

[nico]

yes do tell who you managed to get of said trafic infrigment,:2thumbsup

[Eddieb]

2 of us just lost our licences. allegedly passed an undercover car at 142 ( radar reading )
instant 28 day loss of licence + fines ( $510 )

dont tell us, we know. we are bad boys.

wondering if it is ok to book both of us on 1 radar reading???

Could depend on what radar he was using.

I was done recently coming into Hunterville and was 2nd car in a queue, the cop explained how the radar had picked up the speeds of both front vehicles and that he could tell what speed both were individually from the one radar lock.

I asked him to show me on the unit and once he had taken all the details he gave me a practical demonstration of it working on traffic coming down the road. The unit clearly showed in different display windows at the same time the speeds of 2 vehicles coming towards him traveling directly one behind the other.

Dunno the technical details of how it works but it seems to.

[Ixion]

Not quite. It shows the speed of the fastest vehicle. And the speed of the most powerful radar reflector (ie the strongest signal). Those are the two readings, the speed of the fastest vehicle and the speed of the 'strongest' vehicle.

But there is no way for the unit to tell which of the two vehicles matches the "fastest" reading. And the same vehicle may be both fastest and strongest. Also, the largest vehicle is not necessarily strongest, it depends on the amount of metal and angles and stuff.

If two bikes are following each other , both doing about the same speed, one bike will show as fastest. Could be the first, or the second, no way to tell, other than the cops eye (ie if one is obviously going much faster). The first bike will usually show as strongest signal, just because it is closer, but there can be exceptions to that.

[davereid]

i had a good case, but my main point is :- fight !

if you get done, well you probably asked for it. but so what !
we all do the best we can to pay as little tax as possible.....but when it comes to tickets some get all moralistic and say dumb working class shit like "do the crime, do the time".......suckers !

i just got let off a $510.00 speeding ticket, thanks to good advice and support from fellow KB members ( one in particular ).

so wise up you losers who take it like a bitch, fight the revenue gathering quota system.

Good on you, you should always take every speeding ticket to court, even if you are guilty as hell, for reasons I have raved on about here for ages.

But its NOT because I am anti police, as I'm not.

But years ago, a cop would pull you up speeding.

He would remind you that, technically, 128 was speeding. But, it was a clear road, you were riding a super-bike in perfect condition, sober and aware, so "keep it down lad" was the penalty.

On the other hand, speed when it was dodgy, you would be assured of getting a ticket. And begrudginly, you would know you earned it.

Then they changed the rules - it was never safe to speed. You would always
always get a ticket, no excuses very few cops bucked the trend.

It wasn't the cops doing it, it was the politicians, so don't blame the cops, who by and large are good guys doing a hated job.

But, when they decided to play the rules like to the line, it obligated you to do the same.

If they are going to give you a ticket, because technically you are alledged to be speeding, and thats the law, then you have to say, technically I'm not guilty, and it will be determined in court.

The politicians have said, "play it to the line".
The answer has to be "Thats on the line - not over it"

[coop]

If they are going to give you a ticket, because technically you are alledged to be speeding, and thats the law, then you have to say, technically I'm not guilty, and it will be determined in court.



Interesting, have you ever taken one to court? Although it is breaking the law, do ya reckon that would stand up? (ie, driving to the conditions... 120kmh on Auckland motorway on a still night at 1am on Monday, for example).

In the least, it would put a major hold for your demerits to show up.

I occasionally work night shift, and go thru redlights after work (treat them as a give way), as some take all fucking night to change when I'm the only car there, and have always wondered if the same would stand up if I were to get caught.

[davereid]

You wouldnt get off a speeding ticket just because it was safe to be doing the speed.

Traffic light thing was actually one of the cases I defended albiet many years ago. The lights would change OK for a car, but never detected my scooter, so I treated the intersection as uncontrolled and got a ticket.

Judge agreed that the lights were either faulty, or mal-adjusted, and it was correct procedure to apply right hand rule.

Cop actually told me to either wait for a car, or hop off and push the pedestrian button !

[scumdog]

Cop actually told me to either wait for a car, or hop off and push the pedestrian button !

That's because the ass of a law does not say "If the light refuses to change from the red colour you may ride through at your choice"

Technically he was right.

Common sense say if no other vehicle in sight - ride through.

[vifferman]

Common sense say if no other vehicle in sight - ride through.
Aye. (Or "ae" if you're tangata whenua). [Or 'Aiiiiiyeeeeee!!" if you're a ninja wannabee]
I think sometimes people (including cops) leave their commonsense at home. (If they hadn't lost it years before).

[Max Preload]

Traffic light thing was actually one of the cases I defended albiet many years ago. The lights would change OK for a car, but never detected my scooter, so I treated the intersection as uncontrolled and got a ticket.

Judge agreed that the lights were either faulty, or mal-adjusted, and it was correct procedure to apply right hand rule.

I'm not sure where this 'right hand rule' comes from with regard to road safety - I thought it was to do with electromagnetism.

Either way, that is just completely wrong. If the signals were functioning correctly but just not detecting your presence, then applying the give way rule for an uncontrolled intersection would mean in addition to proceeding against a traffic signal, you'd be failing to give way to vehicles to your left which could well be on a green signal themselves. "If turning, give way to all traffic not turning. In all other situations give way to all vehicles crossing or approaching from your right". If anything it should be treated as at the very least a GIVE WAY.


Cop actually told me to either wait for a car, or hop off and push the pedestrian button !


That's because the ass of a law does not say "If the light refuses to change from the red colour you may ride through at your choice"

Is there not an infringement offence for alighting from a vehicle at a traffic signal?

[davereid]

...If the signals were functioning correctly but just not detecting your presence....

QED.
By not detecting my presence when they were supposed to, they were not functioning correctly.

In which case you may treat them as faulty, as they are faulty.

Which means they have become an uncontrolled intersection, and you apply the right-hand rule ie, you give way to traffic on your right...

Of course traffic on your left may have a green light, so the brain applies....

[Max Preload]

QED.
By not detecting my presence when they were supposed to, they were not functioning correctly.

In which case you may treat them as faulty, as they are faulty.

Which means they have become an uncontrolled intersection, and you apply the right-hand rule ie, you give way to traffic on your right...

Of course traffic on your left may have a green light, so the brain applies....

You are aware that many signals often operate on traffic volume in peak periods and a timer in off-peak periods...

[davereid]

You are aware that many signals often operate on traffic volume in peak periods and a timer in off-peak periods...

Yeah, it seems strange that an expensive and useful feature like vehicle detection would be turned off at night time when it could potentially be even more useful !

Of course if a light wasn't faulty or mal-adjusted, but it just wouldn't change because it had been programmed by a moron, you would either have to wait, or take the chance of a ticket.

[swbarnett]

That's because the ass of a law does not say "If the light refuses to change from the red colour you may ride through at your choice"
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there something in law that covers a "malfunctioning" traffic light? i.e. if it's broken, apply the right-hand rule.

If the light is not detecting you then, technically, it's broken.

[MarkH]

I would have to say that anyone that uses the right hand rule in this case (red light not changing for a bike) is frickin' nuts. You should use common sense and treat it like you are at a stop sign and give way to everyone. Since it is a case of the lights being faulty for YOU, but everyone else is getting correctly working lights then you need to give way to anyone that sees a green and rightfully proceeds through the intersection.

Even the simple rule of self preservation should tell you to give way to any car driving through the intersection. If no one else is anywhere near then ride through.