Busted? Help!

[hospitalfood]

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???

[Maha]

2 of us just lost our licences. 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???

Can i borrow the Buell??.....:chase:

[hospitalfood]

no mate, but thanks for the laugh

[kiwifruit]

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

[hospitalfood]

we were hoping for that answer....

how ?

[Meanie]

Well its gotta suck being you at the moment :(
Sorry to hear you lost your license, did they take the bikes, i believe they can if your doing more than 40 k over
Unfortunatly it could happen to most of us at one time or another. Three months wont take long, still sucks though

[hospitalfood]

didnt take the bikes, mate came and got us with his truck.
we need good legal advice.......due to the fines it would be good to have cheap good legal advice, or even free.

[Jantar]

if it was just a fine, and demerits, then I'd say pay up and forget it. But the loss of licence part may make it wortyh fighting.

I beleive that the radar reads the largest and/or the fasest target, but will only lock onto a single target. The cop will have to say which one was the target, the other will only be an estimate.

Also check your tickets. Has the cop put down the same time for each? He should have, but may have put down seperate times to make it appear that you were stopped at different times. For a potential loss of licence get a lawyer rather than listen to any advice that I, or anyone else, may give.

[kiwifruit]

we were hoping for that answer....

how ?

on the back of the ticket there should be info:

You should write to the enforement authority if you wish to do any of the following things;
a. Raise a matter concerning the circumstances of the offence for consideration by the enforement authority; or
b.Deny liability for the offence and request a court hearing; or
c. Admit liability for the offence, but make written submissions to the court.

PM me if you like, i maybe able to help ;)

EDIT:
you don't need a lawyer

[Soul.Trader]

Think about this - if you got up in court, and stood in front of a judge, and told him it's not fair because there's only one reading for two people, how do you think he will react? Were you riding together? Were you both going about the same speed? I'd say you're screwed. Do the crime, etc...

[Mrs Busa Pete]

Can i borrow the Buell??.....:chase: why do you need a tractor for are you going to plant out thee back yard

[hospitalfood]

Im not really thinking about right and wrong, just technicalities ??

[Subike]

I do believe that they can take up to three readings at one time.
so you may be out of luck
then you were anyway, by taking the risk of exceeding the limit

[Mrs Busa Pete]

Think about this - if you got up in court, and stood in front of a judge, and told him it's not fair because there's only one reading for two people, how do you think he will react? Were you riding together? Were you both going about the same speed? I'd say you're screwed. Do the crime, etc...

in my experiance the jp cant see past the pric in the uniform after all thay see no reason for the pric in uniform to be wrong quoter what quoter

[jimbo600]

There is UK case law on this. Unless the officer can 100% identify which bike was speeding the case will fail. The most he could do you for is exceeding 100kmh.

Fight it.

[Rashika]

2 of us just lost our licences. 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???

Pm scumdog, he will prob be able to answer your query.

[fireliv]

Give your local Community Law a call. Free legal advice and all that, but I dont like your chances.

Bear in mind that if you take this to court and fail there will be an extra $30 (infringement)-$130(criminal charge) added in court costs

[Maha]

Your mate wasn't Niko was it? Black VTR 1000?
I see its for sale and hes just signed up and is from your neck of the woods...:confused:

[Mikkel]

I say fight it as well! If he only measured the speed of one bike he can't book two down. You have rights - a guesstimate is not good enough for issuing demerit points, fines and disqualifications. (At least I don't hope so, because if so then Kiwis need to stand up and speak out for their civil rights!)


Well its gotta suck being you at the moment :(
Sorry to hear you lost your license, did they take the bikes, i believe they can if your doing more than 40 k over
Unfortunatly it could happen to most of us at one time or another. Three months wont take long, still sucks though

They can not impound your vehicle unless you're driving while disqualified I believe.

[jimbo600]

Pm scumdog, he will prob be able to answer your query.

+1 on that. Scummy is a right good bastard and will give you primo advice. Only if you PM him though.

I'd be taking it to court anyhow though.

[hospitalfood]

Your mate wasn't Niko was it? Black VTR 1000?
I see its for sale and hes just signed up and is from your neck of the woods...:confused:

that would be telling

[slopster]

Surely if one of you was going 142 the other was going slower it might be 141 or it might be 130 but it wouldn't be fair to do you both for 142 just because one of you was doing that speed. And unless one of you was obviously going faster then the other you can't say who was doing 142.

Don't know what happens legally though. How the fuck did you not notice you were passing a mufti?

[FROSTY]

probably 2 bikes 1 cop 2 SEPERATE court cases. One of ya is going down for definite--the first one in court probably.
If first up successfully defends it then he's just nailed his mate up good --It has to be one of ya

[hospitalfood]

Surely if one of you was going 142 the other was going slower it might be 141 or it might be 130 but it wouldn't be fair to do you both for 142 just because one of you was doing that speed. And unless one of you was obviously going faster then the other you can't say who was doing 142.

Don't know what happens legally though. How the fuck did you not notice you were passing a mufti?

I was asleep, I may have been drunk to......(not)

[hospitalfood]

probably 2 bikes 1 cop 2 SEPERATE court cases. One of ya is going down for definite--the first one in court probably.
If first up successfully defends it then he's just nailed his mate up good --It has to be one of ya

think I will wear it if its one of us

[Deviant]

Technically, they would have to prove which one of you was speeding, but practically, if you both passed at the same time same speed, that's enough for the JP to say "We'll use the reading of person you were keeping up with as a guage to how fast you were going. He was doing 142, you were keeping up, so you were also doing 142".

I think they will get away with it too.

[swbarnett]

think I will wear it if its one of us
I don't see why it has to be one of the other. If they can't say which one of you they locked then surely they can't charge either of you.

That would be like saying "I know one of you killed my brother so I'm going to take revenge on both".

There's another issue here. The legal barrier for suspension purely on speed is 140kph I believe. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it say in law that your speedo only has to be accurate to within 10%? If that is true you could quite legitimately claim to have thought you were only doing 130kph with doesn't carry an automatic suspension.

[Mikkel]

There's another issue here. The legal barrier for suspension purely on speed is 140kph I believe. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it say in law that your speedo only has to be accurate to within 10%? If that is true you could quite legitimately claim to have thought you were only doing 130kph with doesn't carry an automatic suspension.

Allow me to be the devils advocate here.

"But if you were intentionally doing 130 km/h then you are intentionally in violation of the road code. Whether you misjudge the extent to which you are breaking the law can not be the legal systems problem..." As such that argument could well be dismissed by the judge.

Even then, if they eat the argument and decide they need evidence you better hope that the speedo doesn't indicate higher (as is the common thing) but lower than the travelled speed.

Tentative at best - but everything is worth a shot.

I'd be more tempted to go the other way and ask for meterological certificates indicating the statistical error on the radar gun in question. If the standard deviation is larger than 2 km/h you have a pretty strong case right there for retaining your licenses! If it is less than 2 km/h but larger than 0.4 km/h you might still be able to use the argument.

Were you stopped by a highway patrol, a mufty or a normal police car? Was the car coming towards you, tailing you or did you pass it?

[swbarnett]

Allow me to be the devils advocate here.

"But if you were intentionally doing 130 km/h then you are intentionally in violation of the road code. Whether you misjudge the extent to which you are breaking the law can not be the legal systems problem..." As such that argument could well be dismissed by the judge.
But <140kph and >=140kph have different penalties so surely need to be treated as different charges? The synic in me says you're probably right though.


Even then, if they eat the argument and decide they need evidence you better hope that the speedo doesn't indicate higher (as is the common thing) but lower than the travelled speed.
I hadn't thought of them actually testing your speedo. Does make sense.

[Soul.Trader]

As I understand it, your speedo only has to be accurate within 10% for the purposes of your vehicle being road legal. That doesn't mean you're not accountable for the speed you were going, regardless of what your speedo says.

[slimjim]

why the fuck did your mate stop too ? would have been only one of ya then !!!! and which one the one pussy enough to feel the tang of discomfort of breaking the law haha yup you's stopped , you's gota alot of walking too , bummer dudes

[Mikkel]

As I understand it, your speedo only has to be accurate within 10% for the purposes of your vehicle being road legal. That doesn't mean you're not accountable for the speed you were going, regardless of what your speedo says.

Indeed. We should actually just be grateful that the police has put in the 10 km/h buffer zone where almost no tickets are issued. It doesn't take many 10 demerit point tickets before it starts adding up to real trouble!



But seriously, consider the issue of statistical error on THEIR equipment. I know that there has been some pretty interesting cases back home where the court couldn't just dismiss the claim of the defendant. I read an article about it in the paper being published by the association of academical engineers in Denmark.

[Mrs Busa Pete]

2 of us just lost our licences. 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???

Pete got done the same way. he took it to court but lost so up to you.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Allow me to be the devils advocate here.

"But if you were intentionally doing 130 km/h then you are intentionally in violation of the road code. Whether you misjudge the extent to which you are breaking the law can not be the legal systems problem..." As such that argument could well be dismissed by the judge.



Bzzzzt, wrong, but thanks for playing.

the point of a criminal prosecution is that the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the crime that is asserted.

So its important to just deny, let them try and prove, and if their major plank of evidence is incorrect (i.e. the radar reading) then its not beyond a reasonable doubt.

However i reckon it would cost you easy a couple of grand to defend, so its up toyou. Oh and get lawyered up.

[Ixion]

But but but - the problem is that is was 140 not 150. And the 28 day suspension is immediate. So, by the time the law dragged its ponderous way through the courts, even if you won the case, the 28 days would be up anyway. And you wouldn't have had your licence through that period. And no earthly court can reverse the clock of time to give you those 28 days back.

So, effectively, even if you are totally innocent, there is no way to defend yourself against that charge. An utter perversion of justice. Which is why it is so wrong and unjustifiable to take peoples licence at the roadside.

[Edbear]

But but but - the problem is that is was 140 not 150. And the 28 day suspension is immediate. So, by the time the law dragged its ponderous way through the courts, even if you won the case, the 28 days would be up anyway. And you wouldn't have had your licence through that period. And no earthly court can reverse the clock of time to give you those 28 days back.

So, effectively, even if you are totally innocent, there is no way to defend yourself against that charge. An utter perversion of justice. Which is why it is so wrong and unjustifiable to take peoples licence at the roadside.


Mmmmm! There's that unofficial 10km/h "tolerance" for exceeding 100km/h, maybe we could suggest a "tolerance" for this point...?

[swbarnett]

Mmmmm! There's that unofficial 10km/h "tolerance" for exceeding 100km/h, maybe we could suggest a "tolerance" for this point...?
Yes, this this is at least one area the cops seem to have seen logic.

It's a separate issue however than taking someone's license at the roadside. Punishment before conviction is just simply against the principle of innocnet until proven guilty.

[Edbear]

Yes, this this is at least one area the cops seem to have seen logic.

It's a separate issue however than taking someone's license at the roadside. Punishment before conviction is just simply against the principle of innocnet until proven guilty.


You have a point, but I doubt there would be much of an outcry to seizing the boy racer's cars at the roadside for dangerous driving/unsafe vehicles, etc. I mean if you're clocked at 140+ you don't have much of a leg to stand on...

[scumdog]

Who is going to start the KB legal fund for h/f???:wait:


PM me if you do - I have this large bridge in Auckland where more of your excess money would also be spent wisely when you buy it from me.......:shutup:

Sorry, my cynic pills ain't as strong as they use to be.:innocent:

[swbarnett]

You have a point, but I doubt there would be much of an outcry to seizing the boy racer's cars at the roadside for dangerous driving/unsafe vehicles, etc. I mean if you're clocked at 140+ you don't have much of a leg to stand on...
Even murderers get bail pending a court case.

[ManDownUnder]

So, effectively, even if you are totally innocent, there is no way to defend yourself against that charge. An utter perversion of justice. Which is why it is so wrong and unjustifiable to take peoples licence at the roadside.

...so you then seek remedial damages.... compensation. I agree it's not ideal but I understand "ideal" is a component of "perfect society" and we don't seem to have one of those...

There's also the wee issue of someone actually doing the crime, therefore time served is not entirely out of order, or am I foolishly seeeking out the spirit of the law rather than the letter?

[Morcs]

2 of us just lost our licences. 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???

Are you trying to compete with me Adam? :wacko:

Bad luck. I just got stung for $950...

[jrandom]

2 of us just lost our licences. passed an undercover car at 142 ( radar reading )

Just out of interest, which road were you on?

I personally never blast past unmarked late-model sedans on the open road until I've had a squiz at their rear parcel shelf and ID'd them as civilians.

You'll probably just have to suck this one up, but if you're not broke you could try spending the money on a lawyer and seeing if arguing against the tickets based on two of you being caught on the one radar reading will stick.

Unfortunately for you, though, it might just take the cop in question saying "Well, yer 'onour, h'in my professional judgment as a traffic h'inforcement h'officer, they h'were definitely travelling at the same speed to within a kilometer per hour or so" to scuttle your defence.

After all, you were both speeding.

[Soul.Trader]

Bzzzzt, wrong, but thanks for playing.

the point of a criminal prosecution is that the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the crime that is asserted.

Traffic infringements aren't criminal prosecutions, are they? And as such, they only have to prove a balance of probability, not necessarily beyond reasonable doubt. That's how I understand it.

[Ixion]

You understand it wrong.

[Ixion]

...so you then seek remedial damages.... compensation. I agree it's not ideal but I understand "ideal" is a component of "perfect society" and we don't seem to have one of those...

There's also the wee issue of someone actually doing the crime, therefore time served is not entirely out of order, or am I foolishly seeeking out the spirit of the law rather than the letter?

Do the crime do the time is fine, BUT there should be a conviction first . After all , for the much more serious speed dangerous (ie another 10kph) you keep your licence UNTIL FOUND GUILTY. No reason at all why the 140 couldn't work the same way. Guilty of 140, lose your licence for 28 days. But, YOU SHOULD BE FOUND GUILTY FIRST.

(There's no right to compesationor damages, BTW .)

[Ixion]

You have a point, but I doubt there would be much of an outcry to seizing the boy racer's cars at the roadside for dangerous driving/unsafe vehicles, etc. I mean if you're clocked at 140+ you don't have much of a leg to stand on...


Unsafe vehicle is a different matter. If I am stopped in an unsafe vehicle, it will not normally be safe for me to proceed. The fact that the vehicle is unsafe when stopped would normally mean that it would be unsafe to proceed. But there is no logic at all that shows that someone who was stopped at 140 would continue at that speed (they might, but there's no evidence to adduce it ) . Stop them, ticket them, let them go on their way. Eventually the legal wheels turn and they are found guilty )or plead guilty otr pay the fine) And then they cop the 28 days. Unless of course they are found not guilty. .

[mudthug]

probably cost you more to fight the charge and you'll probably still lose anyway

[jafar]

2 of us just lost our licences. 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???

I'd get a Lawyer that specializes in traffic law & pay them good money for sound advise rather than listen to the bush lawyers in here:pinch:
Strange as it may seem , but the judges appear to go a bit lighter on 'offenders' who have consulted with their friends :msn-wink:
Judges were lawyers once too ya know

[spudchucka]

As usual there's plenty of good advice here, you should be sweet.:wacko:;)

[Mikkel]

Bzzzzt, wrong, but thanks for playing.

the point of a criminal prosecution is that the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the crime that is asserted.

So its important to just deny, let them try and prove, and if their major plank of evidence is incorrect (i.e. the radar reading) then its not beyond a reasonable doubt.

However i reckon it would cost you easy a couple of grand to defend, so its up toyou. Oh and get lawyered up.

Mate, you read what you quoted wrong. My point was that you're responsible for whatever speed you are doing no matter whether you are aware of what it is. It is not the responsibility of the prosecution to ensure that the defendants speedometer was displaying the right speed (or working at all). If you base your defense on the fact that you thought you were only doing 130 km/h instead of 142 km/h it is not that different from arguing that "I only thought I was stealing $2,000 not $20,000 your honour. Therefore I should go free...". As for reasonable doubt - whether the defendant believes he's committed an offense or not has no impact upon reasonable doubt.

You proceed to state that their best option is to address the accuracy of the radar reading - just like I stated in my posts above. Indeed, if you can prove that the statistical deviation on a speed measurement at ~140 km/h is in the order of 2 km/h you have got a good case.
It actually seems you agree with that... Although for a good defense it would be a better idea not even to address the issue of speed altogether and just focus on what limitations are inherent in the gear used to make the measurement.


I'd get a Lawyer that specializes in traffic law & pay them good money for sound advise rather than listen to the bush lawyers in here:pinch:
Strange as it may seem , but the judges appear to go a bit lighter on 'offenders' who have consulted with their friends :msn-wink:
Judges were lawyers once too ya know

There's a movie right there:

A real-life Central Auckland drama: Once were Lawyers.


And I agree with Ixion, the roadside confiscation of a persons license is absolutely ridiculous. In many cases such a confiscation would constitute a much larger hazard to both the offender and other motorists than that of a motorvehicle travelling at 140-160 km/h!

[Banesto John]

[QUOTE=Ixion;1467340]Do the crime do the time is fine, BUT there should be a conviction first . After all , for the much more serious speed dangerous (ie another 10kph) you keep your licence UNTIL FOUND GUILTY. No reason at all why the 140 couldn't work the same way. Guilty of 140, lose your licence for 28 days. But, YOU SHOULD BE FOUND GUILTY FIRST.

Getting charged with Speed Dangerous isn't always automatic at 151 or higher. It's a case by case thing. Time, place, circumstances.

What is automatic is the 28 day walk, any time you get caught doing 41 or more over any posted speed limit, regardless of what the cop charges you with. Fer example, a bloke gets caught doing 151. The cop charges him with Dangerous Speed(coz he's passing a mini-van full of nuns), he gets a 28 day walk. A different bloke gets caught at 151, this cop is a softie, he charges him with Exceeding 100km/h, but he still has to give a 28 day walk.

Most people charged with murder DON"T get bail. The pollies must have been having a bad day when they let the Coppers hand out 28 day walks. Still, don't do 41 over a speed limit and it probably won't happen.

[hospitalfood]

hi folks

first a thanks to all that have replied and a massive thanks to those who have gone above and beyond the call. you know who you are.

we have recieved heaps of help and good advice.

Morcs mate.........sorry to hear.

we passed ( overtake on straight ) a mufti car, he turned his radar on as we pulled back in and his reading of our speed was 142 km/h.

we have decided it is worth fighting this. there is the matter of weather his radar is correct ? has been calibrated correctly and in the specified timeframe ?
if his car has / had a current warrant / rego ?
I have learnt that the police officer must have done his job correctly, and his equipment must be up to scratch. this all comes into play before we even look at weather it is ok to book both of us with an alleged reading that has only come from one bike.

I dont have massive hopes to be dashed, but I have heard some good news and interesting facts. enough for me to think it is worth a bit of a fight as the officers actions seem unreasonable to me.

once again thanks all

[Morcs]

hi folks

first a thanks to all that have replied and a massive thanks to those who have gone above and beyond the call. you know who you are.

we have recieved heaps of help and good advice.

Morcs mate.........sorry to hear.

we passed ( overtake on straight ) a mufti car, he turned his radar on as we pulled back in and his reading of our speed was 142 km/h.

we have decided it is worth fighting this. there is the matter of weather his radar is correct ? has been calibrated correctly and in the specified timeframe ?
if his car has / had a current warrant / rego ?
I have learnt that the police officer must have done his job correctly, and his equipment must be up to scratch. this all comes into play before we even look at weather it is ok to book both of us with an alleged reading that has only come from one bike.

I dont have massive hopes to be dashed, but I have heard some good news and interesting facts. enough for me to think it is worth a bit of a fight as the officers actions seem unreasonable to me.

once again thanks all

The one to try is wether the radar was calibrated for use against bikes.

[cowboyz]

there will be 2 different court cases to answer if you both defend the charge. One for you, one for him.
Simplicity is the answer. At your case you plead that you DEFINITELY were not exceeding 140k/hr. Admit to 135k. take the ticket and move on. There is plenty of reasonable cause for the judge to believe the OTHER bike was doing 142.
At your mates cause he pleads that he was DEFINITELY not exceeding 140k/hr. Admit to 135k. take the ticket and move on. Plenty of reasonable cause for the judge to believe the OTHER bike was doing 142.
I can see the judge getting pissed and slapping a few fines around the place but no reason why either of you should lose your licences.

[scumdog]

The one to try is wether the radar was calibrated for use against bikes.
Eh

Oh right, yeah, they're only calibrated for white Japanese cars with four-doors>>:blink::crazy::wacko:

[Nade]

hmmmmm we got pulled over just south of Kaikoura as a group.....about 6 of us....for speeding. The cop was a good bastard...spent more time yakking about the bikes than the fact we were doing 119kms. In the end He only gave us a warning and let us go and his parting statment was..who do I give the ticket to......I only got one of ya and I don't know who it was...shrugged his shoulders and laughed. We thought he was a good chap....for a copper....lol

[swbarnett]

Most people charged with murder DON"T get bail.
But most is not all. They still treat murderers better than speeders.

[Grahameeboy]

hi folks

first a thanks to all that have replied and a massive thanks to those who have gone above and beyond the call. you know who you are.

we have recieved heaps of help and good advice.

Morcs mate.........sorry to hear.

we passed ( overtake on straight ) a mufti car, he turned his radar on as we pulled back in and his reading of our speed was 142 km/h.

we have decided it is worth fighting this. there is the matter of weather his radar is correct ? has been calibrated correctly and in the specified timeframe ?
if his car has / had a current warrant / rego ?
I have learnt that the police officer must have done his job correctly, and his equipment must be up to scratch. this all comes into play before we even look at weather it is ok to book both of us with an alleged reading that has only come from one bike.

I dont have massive hopes to be dashed, but I have heard some good news and interesting facts. enough for me to think it is worth a bit of a fight as the officers actions seem unreasonable to me.

once again thanks all

Sorry but you were doing 140ish...overtook a mufti cop...how can you say he was being unreasonable?

I would find out whether you you are likely to get done for any other offences. Maybe talk to the Police Prosecution Service and see what they can tell you. They can be helpful...

Don't get me wrong as you have my sympathy having lost my licence in 2006 but less stress is better and then if you loose you may loose your licence for longer, all extra hassle...

[Grahameeboy]

But most is not all. They still treat murderers better than speeders.

How so...murderers get put in jail, speeders generally don't...silly boy

[cowboyz]

dont you mean 130ish? it was the other bike doing 140ish

[hospitalfood]

if I had murdered the officer I would still have my licence.

this is a bad train of thought.

[scumdog]

if I had murdered the officer I would still have my licence.

this is a bad train of thought.

Especially with all the riding you get in jail...

[hospitalfood]

Sorry but you were doing 140ish...overtook a mufti cop...how can you say he was being unreasonable?

I would find out whether you you are likely to get done for any other offences. Maybe talk to the Police Prosecution Service and see what they can tell you. They can be helpful...

Don't get me wrong as you have my sympathy having lost my licence in 2006 but less stress is better and then if you loose you may loose your licence for longer, all extra hassle...

alleged speed of 142 does not mean I was doing 140ish, no offence intended grahameeboy but I have not said I was doing 140ish, or even said I was speeding.

[Steam]

if I had murdered the officer I would still have my licence.


If you had murdered the officer you'd be the subject of a massive manhunt, living in fear, not knowing when you'd get a knock on the door that'd be the beginning of a life sentence in prison. You'd have killed some kid's dad, and some woman's husband, and not many people can live with having murdered someone over a traffic offence.

Also, that was a stupid thing to post.

[hospitalfood]

Especially with all the riding you get in jail...

Mmmm. good call

[Grahameeboy]

alleged speed of 142 does not mean I was doing 140ish, no offence intended grahameeboy but I have not said I was doing 140ish, or even said I was speeding.

No offence taken and I know, however, circumstancial evidence, 2 bikers overtaking a car...doesn't leave much to the imagination...

I guess I just take the easy route, pay fine...deal with rest...

[Grahameeboy]

dont you mean 130ish? it was the other bike doing 140ish

Trubs is this can get complicated....maybe try for a plea bargain for giving states evidence against the other guy...

[hospitalfood]

I guess I just take the easy route, pay fine...deal with rest...[/QUOTE]

this has always been my approach in the past, however this time I will make sure that we are at fault, and the job has been done correctly if we are.
they cannot fine us more or take our licences longer because we decided to be sure.

[cowboyz]

sounds dodgey enough to me to give it a crack. Word to the wise though - I have never got off anything!

ps. Steam take a pill. He was obviously taking the piss

[Grahameeboy]

I guess I just take the easy route, pay fine...deal with rest...

this has always been my approach in the past, however this time I will make sure that we are at fault, and the job has been done correctly if we are.
they cannot fine us more or take our licences longer because we decided to be sure.[/quote]

Well all the best anyway mate...doing what you believe is right is just as important too

[hospitalfood]

thanks Grahameeboy

[Grahameeboy]

thanks Grahameeboy

Not wishing the worst, however, I can help you if you end up needing a limited licence...not a Lawyer but did my own in 2006.

[Gaz]

It's a separate issue however than taking someone's license at the roadside. Punishment before conviction is just simply against the principle of innocnet until proven guilty.[/QUOTE]

First-up, I think Tc's are a waste of oxygen. But! This cop has probably scraped up a few bikers who may or may not have been speeding. What HE saw was a couple of larikins RACING and figured you for his next cleaning job. I'm picking that he doesn't want to phone your mum next time you are in his neighbourhood . I'm not sure if you lost your licence for good, or for 28 days. If it's 28 days, pay the price. if its for good - Pay a lawyer.

If you are like the rest of us mortals, You've got away with alot more than what you'll pay for. :innocent:

[Morcs]

Dont worry about it Adam.

You are only in for a 28day ban unless he added a dangerous/reckless/careless charge - then its 6 months.

You are very lucky.

Last time I got a 28daya for doing the same offence (think i got written down as 156kph) I got a $780 fine.

It could be far worse, just look at skidmark. Or my signature for that matter...

[discotex]

Even murderers get bail pending a court case.

Even drunk drivers can't lose their licence on the roadside right? Last I heard it was taking up to a year to serve the suspensions as well.

[Toaster]

Im not really thinking about right and wrong, just technicalities ??

Its likely the cop tracked the both of you... i.e. picked up one then the other. They don't need to lock the speed on or show you the readout either. Seeking disclosure of the officers notes is all you can really ask for at this stage. Could be an interesting read.

[hospitalfood]

Its likely the cop tracked the both of you... i.e. picked up one then the other. They don't need to lock the speed on or show you the readout either. Seeking disclosure of the officers notes is all you can really ask for at this stage. Could be an interesting read.

does the disclosure include details about his car and its current state ?
does it cost anything ?

thanks

[hospitalfood]

Dont worry about it Adam.

You are only in for a 28day ban unless he added a dangerous/reckless/careless charge - then its 6 months.

You are very lucky.

Last time I got a 28daya for doing the same offence (think i got written down as 156kph) I got a $780 fine.

It could be far worse, just look at skidmark. Or my signature for that matter...

you sure that they wont try to take it off me for longer ?

[Toaster]

does the disclosure include details about his car and its current state ?
does it cost anything ?

thanks

You would get all that through full disclosure but yeah the back of the ION will show details re the radar and should give cert number/date for officer.

I'd say at 140+ you will be lucky to get off it mate, the judge wont be amused at all.

[Skyryder]

Even drunk drivers can't lose their licence on the roadside right? Last I heard it was taking up to a year to serve the suspensions as well.

Yep that's right. They can get their keys taken off them but as far as I know they do not have and instant loss of licence.

I certainly know who the dangerouse drivers are. All drunk drivers are dangerous but not all speedsters are.

Skyryder

[spudchucka]

Even drunk drivers can't lose their licence on the roadside right?

They can at a booze bus if they blow 800 or more.

[jrandom]

They can at a booze bus if they blow 800 or more.

Something I've always wondered.

Will a booze bus give you a test if you rock up on foot and ask?

It'd be quite handy for when it was parked downtown near a pub. Nip out, check how pissed you are, nip back in, etc.

[cowboyz]

yes they will if you ask them. Then again, if you are not walking striaght and stumbling up the road they just tell you to get a taxi and be on your way without the ttest......

[Morcs]

you sure that they wont try to take it off me for longer ?

Only if there is a dangerous charge etc... you wouldve been issued that on the spot.

However, if you went to court to contest, there is the slight chance the judge could dish out a dangerous charge.

Or it takes you over 100 demerits - expect 50 points outta this.

[McDuck]

As I understand it, your speedo only has to be accurate within 10% for the purposes of your vehicle being road legal. That doesn't mean you're not accountable for the speed you were going, regardless of what your speedo says.

It don't have to be accurate at all. For all the wof guys care you could be doing 100 with it saying 20. (unless it is alternate fuel, then they dont like it):angry2:

[Renegade]

It's a separate issue however than taking someone's license at the roadside. Punishment before conviction is just simply against the principle of innocnet until proven guilty.

[/QUOTE] But! This cop has probably scraped up a few bikers who may or may not have been speeding. What HE saw was a couple of larikins RACING and figured you for his next cleaning job. I'm picking that he doesn't want to phone your mum [/QUOTE]

i did this on saturday, it ruined my day, but it seems the biker was at fault, dont make it any easier tho.

[spudchucka]

Something I've always wondered.

Will a booze bus give you a test if you rock up on foot and ask?

It'd be quite handy for when it was parked downtown near a pub. Nip out, check how pissed you are, nip back in, etc.

That's been discussed here before and the answer is almost always no.

The problem is that the sniffer test is not conclusive, which could result in a driver believing they are ok to drive when in fact they may be slightly over.

They would not let you use the evidential machine in the booze bus just to satisfy your own curiosity.

They general answer would be that if you think you have to be tested to be sure you are ok to drive then you shouldn't be driving at all.

[Soul.Trader]

we have decided it is worth fighting this. there is the matter of weather his radar is correct ? has been calibrated correctly and in the specified timeframe ?
if his car has / had a current warrant / rego ?

This has exactly SQUAT to do with the fact you raced past him at 142km/h. Why would his WOF/Reg have any impact on this case what so ever?

[marty]

There is UK case law on this. Unless the officer can 100% identify which bike was speeding the case will fail. The most he could do you for is exceeding 100kmh.

Fight it.

Sorry jimbo, but that's all the charge is anyway - 'exceeds 100km/h'. It is the speed that is in question.

AFAIK there is no NZ case law saying that more than one target cannot be tracked and stopped and had enforcement action taken, using the single radar - every boy racer drag racing another would have a defence if that was the case.

It would be a simple matter to stand up in court and correctly say - 'I had a clear view, a clear tone, and both targets were travelling at the same speed. Your honour'.

[scumdog]

They can at a booze bus if they blow 800 or more.

Uh, things have changed - over 650 now!! - booze-bus, station. wherever.

OR if they blow over that and go for blood,

Or if they refuse blood (if they refused breath or it was not available),

OR if they go straight for blood and it comes back over 130.

IIRC.

[scumdog]

Something I've always wondered.

Will a booze bus give you a test if you rock up on foot and ask?

It'd be quite handy for when it was parked downtown near a pub. Nip out, check how pissed you are, nip back in, etc.

They're not keen:
"Oh, I blew under, sweet, I'll have one more and I should be right!" - then they get pinged "But, but, they said I was under??" - unhappy camper.

Or the breath/blood level could still be climbing - same scenario as above


No test as it saves a bunfight in Court.

[Swoop]

And no earthly court can reverse the clock of time to give you those 28 days back.
Getting a "credit" against your next visit, sounds fun!

Oh right, yeah, they're only calibrated for white Japanese cars with four-doors>>:blink::crazy::wacko:
But, but... hanging a CD from your rear view mirror will deflect the rays...:blink::clap::wacko:

It'd be quite handy for when it was parked downtown near a pub. Nip out, check how pissed you are, nip back in, etc.
Back to the bartender... "gimme another 75 micrograms please!":rofl:

[wildcat_lgf]

we have decided it is worth fighting this. there is the matter of weather his radar is correct ? has been calibrated correctly and in the specified timeframe ?
if his car has / had a current warrant / rego ?
I have learnt that the police officer must have done his job correctly, and his equipment must be up to scratch. this all comes into play before we even look at weather it is ok to book both of us with an alleged reading that has only come from one bike.


Just 2 thoughts at this stage:
Personally I think that for all the time wasted arguing over the issue, scheming how to get out of it, etc you would've been better off working a bit of overtime to earn the extra $ to pay the fine.

Secondly...I used to often check the calibration dates at the petrol pump when I'd fill up - just in case the pump was out of date...therefore how could they possibly know for certain I had pumped $90 worth of fuel instead of $9?
I have since discovered there is normally several months overlap between test dates. I'm certain you will find it the same with the cops radar, wof, rego etc. I cannot imagine them letting it get out of date for all the hassles it would create.

If you are really intent on fighting it, then I would think the margin of error would be your best bet...then again the judge might rule you were probably doing 150km/hr instead (+$x fine)

[swbarnett]

How so...murderers get put in jail, speeders generally don't...silly boy
Let me clarify - Alledged murderers.

[TimeOut]

hmmmmm we got pulled over just south of Kaikoura as a group.....about 6 of us....for speeding. The cop was a good bastard...spent more time yakking about the bikes than the fact we were doing 119kms. In the end He only gave us a warning and let us go and his parting statment was..who do I give the ticket to......I only got one of ya and I don't know who it was...shrugged his shoulders and laughed. We thought he was a good chap....for a copper....lol

Same thing happened to my brother years ago 160+ though, cop was none to happy and gave them a lecture for about half an hour.
But I think the cop has probably got indivual readings on you as you passed.

[spudchucka]

Uh, things have changed - over 650 now!!

Its been a while since I dealt with an EBA, they should bring back the 600 conclusive - no option for blood too.

[spudchucka]

Why would his WOF/Reg have any impact on this case what so ever?

It won't, bush lawyers strike again.

[Grahameeboy]

Let me clarify - Alledged murderers.

Alleged...:spanking:

[HungusMaximist]

This isn't constructive, but when you had the chance you should've just slapped the damm radar gun off his hand and smashed it to pieces with your boots.

Now where's the evidence? :msn-wink:

[Mikkel]

This isn't constructive, but when you had the chance you should've just slapped the damm radar gun off his hand and smashed it to pieces with your boots.

Now where's the evidence? :msn-wink:

This is how I've understood it - and if I'm mistaken please correct me resident police officers...

There's actually a considerable problem with how the speed limit enforcement is handled in NZ. There is actually no body of evidence. It's the cops word against the offenders.

It's not like the radar gun actually records the speed in a log with dates on it. The lock just locks the number in place... (Or am I mistaken about this?)


In Denmark they have video rigs in the cars and the video show the speed of the cop car, what is being targeted and the speed of the target. The video is evidence and can be used in court.

[davereid]

OK, the facts about radar....

Police regularly use radar where multiple vehicles are potential targets.

They will then attempt to get a confession ; "why were you speeding, I clocked you at 142". Most of the time, your attempt at an explanation is as good as a confession.

Why it matters ?

Because the doppler shift radar the police use should not be used in multiple target situations. For technical reasons, not legal ones.

The basic thing being, it cannot identify its target. The cop has to guess. In fact, early models cant even tell which direction the target vehicle is travelling !

Accuracy. This depends on stationary or mobile mode. From the Stalker DSR 2X spec sheet it may typically be +1.6 - 3.2 km/hr in stationary mode. It claims +/- 3.2 km/hr in mobile mode.

These radar units claim to track up to 4 vehicles... they can certainly display the speed of 4 targets, but as they have no idea which target is which, you should defend this case, particularly if you made no admission of guilt.

More info on my web page http://www.eslnz.com/radar.html

[hospitalfood]

OK, the facts about radar....

Police regularly use radar where multiple vehicles are potential targets.

They will then attempt to get a confession ; "why were you speeding, I clocked you at 142". Most of the time, your attempt at an explanation is as good as a confession.

Why it matters ?

Because the doppler shift radar the police use should not be used in multiple target situations. For technical reasons, not legal ones.

The basic thing being, it cannot identify its target. The cop has to guess. In fact, early models cant even tell which direction the target vehicle is travelling !

Accuracy. This depends on stationary or mobile mode. From the Stalker DSR 2X spec sheet it may typically be +1.6 - 3.2 km/hr in stationary mode. It claims +/- 3.2 km/hr in mobile mode.

These radar units claim to track up to 4 vehicles... they can certainly display the speed of 4 targets, but as they have no idea which target is which, you should defend this case, particularly if you made no admission of guilt.

More info on my web page http://www.eslnz.com/radar.html

this is great info, thanks heaps.
any more info like this anybody ?
or tales of people getting let off in court ? and how ?

[davereid]

at least it is a ticket you can defend... with a reasonable expectation of winning. A smart cop would just have charged you with "display of speed or acceleration" or what ever the new nazis call it. Then they always win !

[ynot slow]

Hard to defend the speedo being out by say 30km over limit if it was 100km zone.

If you goto court and lose the case,at least you have the option of paying the fine off.Albeit the court costs are added.

Also if your close to losing license because of demerit points,at least you get rid of them because of disqualification? or not.Thought they expired once license was taken.

[scumdog]

this is great info, thanks heaps.
any more info like this anybody ?
or tales of people getting let off in court ? and how ?


I would check on how up-to-date and accurate the info given to you is...<_<

[homer]

if 2 cars are in a speed camera pic
no fine is sent

ask to see if the cop has the paper work to show hes compient to us the radar

[scumdog]

This is how I've understood it - and if I'm mistaken please correct me resident police officers...

In Denmark they have video rigs in the cars and the video show the speed of the cop car, what is being targeted and the speed of the target. The video is evidence and can be used in court.

And if the cop car ain't actually moving??:Pokey: (Like mine in 'ambush' mode).

[scumdog]

This isn't constructive, but when you had the chance you should've just slapped the damm radar gun off his hand and smashed it to pieces with your boots.

Now where's the evidence? :msn-wink:

On the ground - for the intentional damage charge....$3,500 in reparation plus all the other 'sundry expenses'.

And where did he say the 'radar gun' was in anybodys hand????????

[FJRider]

Talk to a Lawyer, free legal advice (from citizens advice centers) or not, helps sort it in your head, what you action (if any) you should take. NOT BY WHAT THE BUSH LAWYERS ON THIS SITE MAY ADVISE, If you fight it...good luck. If you don't...you will find out who your friends are.

[tl_tub]

The DSR radar can pick out a 'fastest' target from two vehicles traveling in the beam, so can be used with multiple targets.
The DSR 2X isn't in use here so those comments aren't relevant.




OK, the facts about radar....

Police regularly use radar where multiple vehicles are potential targets.

They will then attempt to get a confession ; "why were you speeding, I clocked you at 142". Most of the time, your attempt at an explanation is as good as a confession.

Why it matters ?

Because the doppler shift radar the police use should not be used in multiple target situations. For technical reasons, not legal ones.

The basic thing being, it cannot identify its target. The cop has to guess. In fact, early models cant even tell which direction the target vehicle is travelling !

Accuracy. This depends on stationary or mobile mode. From the Stalker DSR 2X spec sheet it may typically be +1.6 - 3.2 km/hr in stationary mode. It claims +/- 3.2 km/hr in mobile mode.

These radar units claim to track up to 4 vehicles... they can certainly display the speed of 4 targets, but as they have no idea which target is which, you should defend this case, particularly if you made no admission of guilt.

More info on my web page http://www.eslnz.com/radar.html

[scumdog]

The DSR radar can pick out a 'fastest' target from two vehicles traveling in the beam, so can be used with multiple targets.
The DSR 2X isn't in use here so those comments aren't relevant.

Hmmm, mine has a label saying 'FASTEST" - and will lock two speeds.....one being the fastest surprisingly enough...but to be grammatical it should read 'faster' eh..

[tl_tub]

Well now there is no way he can dispute what ive said! Thanks SD :)

It could be 'faster' out of two targets, but how about 'fastest' out of multiples? Not sure sorry ;)


Hmmm, mine has a label saying 'FASTEST" - and will lock two speeds.....one being the fastest surprisingly enough...but to be grammatical it should read 'faster' eh..

[jrandom]

You know, if this happened to me, I'd just kick myself for being an oblivious cunt, and suck it up.

You're not coming across very dignified, hospitalfood. Scrambling around trying to bullshit one's way out of a fair cop isn't how the game should be played, in my humble opinion.

No disrespect intended. I just wonder if maybe you should take a deep breath and look beyond this. Plead guilty, let it roll off your back, and get on with other things.

[Mikkel]

And if the cop car ain't actually moving??:Pokey: (Like mine in 'ambush' mode).

What do you mean? Does it make a difference to the amount of recorded evidence whether you're having a doughnut break? :Pokey: (pardon my poor attempt at wit...)

Or are you implying that the danish cop cars have to be stationary to record video? That is not the case.


Am I incorrect to assume that the only thing that actually prevents you, as a police officer, from pulling some poor soul over and bagging them for doing 250 km/h are your own morals and integrity (and the car in question, it would have to be physically possible)?
The evidence presented in court in case of a disputed speeding ticket to support the enforcer would be the ticket and a logbook stating when the radar had been calibrated - is there anything else besides the enforcers testimony?

[MaxB]

I have a mate who is a policman in a country that has camera patrol cars. He says they are fairly unpopular in the local force because the bosses have reduced staffing to 1 officer per car (not a problem here) and the 'contacts' have to take place in front of the camera.

I am told the unit itself has a small monitor with a target box on the screen. The microwave unit is calibrated so that when a vehicle enters the box the displyed speed is correct. The recording is all that is required for a ticket.

Video here would cut down the number of he said/she said cases in court.

[spudchucka]

Video here would cut down the number of he said/she said cases in court.

Which works in two ways because it also exposes the lying twats that make vexatious complaints about honest hard working cops.

[scumdog]

Which works in two ways because it also exposes the lying twats that make vexatious complaints about honest hard working cops.

That's why we would like them in the EBA room (where we process drink-drivers).

I guess most of you have seen drunken idiots in the EBA room on 10/7 etc and seen how pathetic they are - well their lies later are just as bad.

A camera would wipe that out easily.

And as far as in-car videos go? Bring 'em on, :2thumbsupmy only regret would be I would not be able to release the resulting recordings on u-tube etc.

Of course the down side is the 'soft' cops wouldn't be able to knock any speed off/ignore offences when they pull somebody over....

But the public would be happy I'm sure, after all it's all 'on camera', up front, no bullshitting by the cops etc:rolleyes:

[scumdog]

What do you mean?

Am I incorrect to assume that the only thing that actually prevents you, as a police officer, from pulling some poor soul over and bagging them for doing 250 km/h are your own morals and integrity (and the car in question, it would have to be physically possible)?
The evidence presented in court in case of a disputed speeding ticket to support the enforcer would be the ticket and a logbook stating when the radar had been calibrated - is there anything else besides the enforcers testimony?

The 'what do you mean' bit? - you mentioned in your earlier post on Denmark having video cameras in their Police vehicles about the patrol vehicle speed being recorded - I was just making comment the patrol vehicle is not always moving.

And yup, you pretty much summed it all up in your last paragraph.

[davereid]

The DSR radar can pick out a 'fastest' target from two vehicles traveling in the beam, so can be used with multiple targets.
The DSR 2X isn't in use here so those comments aren't relevant.

The DSR can display both the fastest target, and the strongest target.

But it can't tell which is which. And it can't even tell how far away the target it is displaying is.

Its not being anti-radar, anti-police or pro-speeder.

Its just the laws of physics.

[Mikkel]

Which works in two ways because it also exposes the lying twats that make vexatious complaints about honest hard working cops.

Indeed, that would be an added bonus. I've never had a bad experience with a member of the law enforcing community. I may not necessarily have agreed with a ticket being issued, but I couldn't honestly say I wasn't in breach of whatever...


Of course the down side is the 'soft' cops wouldn't be able to knock any speed off/ignore offences when they pull somebody over....

Soft cops are a myth and you know it ;)

I think people in Denmark still get off with a warning every now and again. Only if a ticket is issued will the records be kept for evidence. I mean, the video is running all of the time, it's not like somebody sits down and check the entire tape after each shift.

Also, in Denmark there's certainly no quota system. I have been led to believe that is the case in NZ, at least with HP.


The 'what do you mean' bit? - you mentioned in your earlier post on Denmark having video cameras in their Police vehicles about the patrol vehicle speed being recorded - I was just making comment the patrol vehicle is not always moving.

Ah, in that case it'll just be recorded as 0 km/h - easy eh ;)


And yup, you pretty much summed it all up in your last paragraph.

In which case we have to be thankful that NZ isn't suffering from a higher degree of corruption than it is! :yes:

[Ixion]

I have a mate who is a policman in a country that has camera patrol cars. He says they are fairly unpopular in the local force because the bosses have reduced staffing to 1 officer per car (not a problem here) and the 'contacts' have to take place in front of the camera.

I am told the unit itself has a small monitor with a target box on the screen. The microwave unit is calibrated so that when a vehicle enters the box the displyed speed is correct. The recording is all that is required for a ticket.

Video here would cut down the number of he said/she said cases in court.

I used to think that it would be a good idea for the radar gadgets to produce a hard copy output. Then I had a wee think, about the number of times I've been stopped and let off, either completely or at a reduced tariff. Which would not be possible if there was a hard copy or video record. Sergeant Snake would be certain to review them, and any plod who turned a bit of a blind eye would be in the shit. So I think I prefer things the way they are. I'm pretty sure there is the occasional cop who fakes the reading. But I'm also pretty sure that the nnumber of such is much less than the OK bastards who will cut you a bit of slack (eh, Mr DMNTD ?)

[Swoop]

And as far as in-car videos go? Bring 'em on, :2thumbsupmy only regret would be I would not be able to release the resulting recordings on u-tube etc.
Is there some sort of "exclusive" agreement somewhere? Perhaps the NZ :Police: bringing out a yearly DVD compilation? A possible earner for the force there!


Oops, almost forgot... (p/t).

[Patrick]

But but but - the problem is that is was 140 not 150. And the 28 day suspension is immediate. So, by the time the law dragged its ponderous way through the courts, even if you won the case, the 28 days would be up anyway. And you wouldn't have had your licence through that period. And no earthly court can reverse the clock of time to give you those 28 days back.

So, effectively, even if you are totally innocent, there is no way to defend yourself against that charge. An utter perversion of justice. Which is why it is so wrong and unjustifiable to take peoples licence at the roadside.

Or you can use the 28 day suspension as punishment already given is sufficient, no need for further time off licence??? (As I am seeing from ther courts lately..)

I don't stop, ticket and suspend totally innocent speeders though...


Even drunk drivers can't lose their licence on the roadside right? Last I heard it was taking up to a year to serve the suspensions as well.


Yep that's right. They can get their keys taken off them but as far as I know they do not have and instant loss of licence.

I certainly know who the dangerouse drivers are. All drunk drivers are dangerous but not all speedsters are.

Skyryder


Uh, things have changed - over 650 now!! - booze-bus, station. wherever.

OR if they blow over that and go for blood,

Or if they refuse blood (if they refused breath or it was not available),

OR if they go straight for blood and it comes back over 130.

IIRC.

Also, if they have convictions for EBA within 4 years, there is a list of rasons when ya licence is goneburger at the roadside for pissheads...


The DSR can display both the fastest target, and the strongest target.

But it can't tell which is which. And it can't even tell how far away the target it is displaying is.

Its not being anti-radar, anti-police or pro-speeder.

Its just the laws of physics.


Yes it can... when the fastest speed of 142 flicks off and the closest speed says 142... it is the same then...

[Pex Adams]

Hospital personally I think you should take a serious look in the mirror and ask yourself this...
'I know the truth, I was doing way more then what the officer booked me for. Am I willing to go to court when I know this, or should I bite the bitter pill of the punishment and swallow???'

I know if I were in your position I would be thinking really hard about the morals, and what sort of person you are, and want to be.

[breakaway]

If you had murdered the officer you'd be the subject of a massive manhunt, living in fear, not knowing when you'd get a knock on the door that'd be the beginning of a few hours of community service

Fixed

<img src=''/>

[hospitalfood]

ok, posts and opinions keep coming which is great.

assuming the radar is calibrated, and all the other rules the officer must follow are being followed, and the radar did lock on one of our bikes.

there is still no way to know which bike it was !
also, with the + or - 3 km/h accuracy spec of the radar unit ( while in mobile mode, which it was ), one of us doing 142 has definatly not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. the bike the radar allegedly got a reading from could have been traveling at 139. so it is not proven beyond reasonable doubt that even one of us was travelling over 140 ( I dont think either of us was ) yet we have both lost our licences for 28 days.

some of you think I should just take it, personally I dont think either of us should just take it.

[Patrick]

ok, posts and opinions keep coming which is great.

assuming the radar is calibrated, and all the other rules the officer must follow are being followed, and the radar did lock on one of our bikes.

there is still know way to know which bike it was !
also, with the + or - 3 km/h accuracy spec of the radar unit ( while in mobile mode, which it was ), one of us doing 142 has definatly not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. the bike the radar allegedly got a reading from could have been traveling at 139. so it is not proven beyond reasonable doubt that even one of us was travelling over 140 ( I dont think either of us was ) yet we have both lost our licences for 28 days.

some of you think I should just take it, personally I dont think either of us should just take it.

Even at 39km over, it is still 50 demerits... so they might still have ya by the short and curlies...

[davereid]

ok, posts and opinions keep coming which is great.

assuming the radar is calibrated, and all the other rules the officer must follow are being followed, and the radar did lock on one of our bikes.

there is still no way to know which bike it was !
also, with the + or - 3 km/h accuracy spec of the radar unit ( while in mobile mode, which it was ), one of us doing 142 has definatly not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. the bike the radar allegedly got a reading from could have been traveling at 139. so it is not proven beyond reasonable doubt that even one of us was travelling over 140 ( I dont think either of us was ) yet we have both lost our licences for 28 days.

some of you think I should just take it, personally I dont think either of us should just take it.

You don't have to prove you were not speeding. The police have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you were.

Lets assume you were not speeding at all !

If the court agreed, they would not convict you.

But due to the nazi law now in force, you have already been without wheels for 28 days.

I bet they don't offer you $20,000 to cover your inconvenience !

Thats why its really a "legal system" not a "justice" system.

So, in this case, even if innocent, you have already paid a major price.

So, while there will be those who say "just cough up" I suggest you deny, and defend all speeding accusations.

The system cheerfully offers to penalise you massively without bothering with inconveniences like getting a conviction.

You deserve to get off a few that you did.

The system can only survive its current massive conviction rate if you pay the ticket. Simply requesting a hearing, and requiring disclosure would bring it to its knees.

Last night on the telly, cops bragged about 400 tickets given to boy racers in one night.

Hmm if all of those biy racers said, nah, see you in court, the system would take years to get it dealt to.

When the system is sensible and fair, then play the game fairly. But right now, its facist and corrupt. So play the entire hand out. Even if you lose, the system loses more, and we all win in the end.

[hospitalfood]

I agree with you, its not a personal thing with me where I hate cops, I dont hate them at all and they have a job to do.
I just dont think we have been treated justly !
I have let it go before and paid up etc, when it has been unreasonable ( not all have been, sometimes it was a fair cop ) but I have had enough of doing it.

it does come down to economics, and making revenue. If they make easy money through tickets they wont stop, the system will continue with the profitable ticket quota. regardless of weather it is just.

[geoffm]

The cops don't have to prove traffic offences, merely having the cop say "He is guilty" is enough to send you down. if you take it to court, all that will happen is you get court costs as well. If you have a spare $20k, you might look at taking it to appeal or a higher court, where the rules of evidence are occaisionally used. Bob Jones did this, but he has enoug hmoney to make it more of an even battle. I can't recall if he won or lost.
G

[Soul.Trader]

When the system is sensible and fair, then play the game fairly. But right now, its facist and corrupt. So play the entire hand out. Even if you lose, the system loses more, and we all win in the end.


Yeah, damn those facists! Out there handing out tickets to people who knowingly breach the law!

[Soul.Trader]

I just dont think we have been treated justly !

You poor wee thing, being treated so unjustly. All you did was blast past a police officer. What right does he have? Sounds like you need to go have a cry on your boyfriends shoulder.

[davereid]

Yeah, damn those facists! Out there handing out tickets to people who knowingly breach the law!

Handing out a ticket - thats the way it works. No problem there.

But giving a policeman the power to see the alledged offence, make a road side decision as to guilt, and roll out the punishment... hmm, thats facist allright !

[@mmie]

Were you stopped by a highway patrol, a mufty or a normal police car? Was the car coming towards you, tailing you or did you pass it?

This is a totally valid question, I no people who have gotten away with just cruising away at the same speed, if not increasing it a bit more and just ride off and watch the flashing lights fade away in you mirror. If for some reason they do manage to catch up then just claim inocence & say you hadn't checked your mirror. If he was tailing you then that is different and basically your screwed!

I have to agree with alot of the posts, you could try take it to court but by the time you get your day the 28 days will be up, I just hope for your sake the demerits aren't going to kill you.

Safer riding next time. Slow & easy wins the race (hmm)

[FJRider]

Why is it, people complain the loudest about the "stupid" laws which are actually only the ones they get caught breaking, or the ones they find inconvenient at the time. What gives ANY of us the "RIGHT" to pick and choose WHICH law they WILL, or WON'T obey. Personal (in)convenience was never a serious factor considered, in the process (REASON FOR) a LAW being enacted. WE ALL KNOW THE RULES.
Even after knowing (all) the rules, we may find a reason (ANY REASON) to break the rules, this usually means a brief "disscussion" with the Highway Patrol officer when caught, why this rule shouldn't apply to you. This thread was started after an ADMISSION of breaking the rules. AND wants OFF on a "technicality" ANY TECHNICALITY !!!
As was said on a previous post...TWO riders made two mistakes. ONE - BOTH 40 km's over the posted speed limit TWO - BOTH stopped.(after the flashing lights came on)

[hospitalfood]

This is a totally valid question, I no people who have gotten away with just cruising away at the same speed, if not increasing it a bit more and just ride off and watch the flashing lights fade away in you mirror. If for some reason they do manage to catch up then just claim inocence & say you hadn't checked your mirror. If he was tailing you then that is different and basically your screwed!

I have to agree with alot of the posts, you could try take it to court but by the time you get your day the 28 days will be up, I just hope for your sake the demerits aren't going to kill you.

Safer riding next time. Slow & easy wins the race (hmm)

the demerits probably will, not quite sure yet but looks like min 3 months.

[FJRider]

the demerits probably will, not quite sure yet but looks like min 3 months.

How many demerits did you have prior to this "catch" ??? Any prior to this may be wiped !!!

[Jantar]

Hmmm, mine has a label saying 'FASTEST" - and will lock two speeds.....one being the fastest surprisingly enough...but to be grammatical it should read 'faster' eh..
No, Your grammer is correct. As I understand it even if there are 4 vehicles in the beam it will lock the fastest, and the strongest signals, and sometimes they will be the same signal. It will ignore all other signals. So fastest is correct, not neccessarily faster. :innocent:

[Mikkel]

This is a totally valid question, I no people who have gotten away with just cruising away at the same speed, if not increasing it a bit more and just ride off and watch the flashing lights fade away in you mirror. If for some reason they do manage to catch up then just claim inocence & say you hadn't checked your mirror. If he was tailing you then that is different and basically your screwed!

I know someone who has done that as well. Not on a bike, but in a car...

[MaxB]

Which works in two ways because it also exposes the lying twats that make vexatious complaints about honest hard working cops.

Agree 100%. In some European countries 'camera cars' have the ability to play back to drivers exactly what they did wrong at the road side. Shuts them up real quick.

In my mates cruiser the screen and speed display is on all the time but the recording can be stopped or started as required. The hard drive is not big enough to be used continuously. So they retain their discretion when issuing tickets. AFAIK he now issues a lot more dangerous/careless use tickets using video evidence.

[spudchucka]

Agree 100%. In some European countries 'camera cars' have the ability to play back to drivers exactly what they did wrong at the road side. Shuts them up real quick.

In my mates cruiser the screen and speed display is on all the time but the recording can be stopped or started as required. The hard drive is not big enough to be used continuously. So they retain their discretion when issuing tickets. AFAIK he now issues a lot more dangerous/careless use tickets using video evidence.
It would also make great evidence in drink drive cases. At the moment all the court gets is a printout of a breath or blood reading and the cops oral evidence to go on.

If they also had video evidence of the driver staggering out of their car, walking around on their wobbly boots, doing the inebriated stroll and talking the shit that they almost always do then the court would get a really good indication of just how pissed they were at the time.

I think that this would result in some more realistic sentences as at the moment it is just an arbitrary number having been exceeded and therefore is outside the law. If the courts could see for themselves just how pissed a person was when they were apprehended driving they might start to realise that they and all of us share the roads with these wankers.

[Coldrider]

Video footage works both ways, also records policemans activity as well, not always that flash.

[scumdog]

Video footage works both ways, also records policemans activity as well, not always that flash.

True.

But bad behaviour on video?

The public win by about 500 to 1.

[Coldrider]

True.

But bad behaviour on video?

The public win by about 500 to 1.
Yeah, producers get enough of it to string a doco, sorry programme on it and actually get to sell it, then chewing gum viewers actually watch it.

[more_fasterer]

we passed ( overtake on straight ) a mufti car, he turned his radar on as we pulled back in and his reading of our speed was 142 km/h.

we have decided it is worth fighting this. there is the matter of weather his radar is correct ? has been calibrated correctly and in the specified timeframe ?
if his car has / had a current warrant / rego ?
I have learnt that the police officer must have done his job correctly, and his equipment must be up to scratch. this all comes into play before we even look at weather it is ok to book both of us with an alleged reading that has only come from one bike.

I dont have massive hopes to be dashed, but I have heard some good news and interesting facts. enough for me to think it is worth a bit of a fight as the officers actions seem unreasonable to me.

once again thanks all

Overtaking a mufti - D'oh! Been there before myself in the cage, passed at an even 115km/h feeling the energy of two glares burning into the left side of my face... but I digress.


My understanding of doppler radar is that there needs to be a significant difference in speed between the returns from the two pulses the radar puts out (one to the target, the other to the ground) otherwise an accurate speed over ground measurement of the target cannot be made.

This means that the radar cannot measure the speed of targets travelling in the same direction, they either have to be oncoming or the patrol vehicle has to be stationary.


Nothing mentioned previously in this thread by our resident :Police: has mentioned anything about this, perhaps they can either prove or disprove this point?

Similarly, perhaps davereid has some more knowledge on this subject that can be shared?

[scumdog]

This means that the radar cannot measure the speed of targets travelling in the same direction, they either have to be oncoming or the patrol vehicle has to be stationary.

Similarly, perhaps davereid has some more knowledge on this subject that can be shared?


Mwahahaha!!:lol:

Does that explain it???:wait:

[Mikkel]

Similarly, perhaps davereid has some more knowledge on this subject that can be shared?

If you're interested I suppose Wikipedia would have a decent article on the Doppler effect (make sure to look at the one for electro-magnetic radiation).

[more_fasterer]

Nothing mentioned previously in this thread by our resident :Police: has mentioned anything about this, perhaps they can either prove or disprove this point?


Mwahahaha!!:lol:

Does that explain it???:wait:

No, but it does give a few indicators as to your character :rolleyes: perhaps I should have asked if any of our resident :Police: had anything constructive to add?

[hospitalfood]

there is more than one resident officer and sometimes thier opinions differ, however the target / ground thing sounds unlikely judging by the specs of the radar unit.
but I could be wrong ?

[hospitalfood]

furthermore, I have found all the resident officers to be good guys and helpfull, but they will take the piss at times as they are human.

[more_fasterer]

I have found all the resident officers to be good guys and helpfull

By and large, so have I - especially scummy. I'll leave it up to you to investigate the possibility I mentioned further.

Letting go now...

[Maha]

there is more than one resident officer and sometimes thier opinions differ, however the target / ground thing sounds unlikely judging by the specs of the radar unit.
but I could be wrong ?


I got by a Blonde Cop (ticketted) heading into Maungaturoto, she flicked her headlights at me, i looked at the speedo (Hi-Ace Van) and it read 102kms!!
She turned and caught me up making a big deal out of it, all the light working. Said she clocked me at 112...''naaaaaaa the van would explode at that speed''.... she says ''wanna take a look''?
Now why would i wanna do that?
Got home later that day and put the GPS radar thing from the Holden to the Van, went for a drive, and wadda ya know, different reading, the Larger wheels (Hi Lux or Surf) on the van make the speedo reading 10 kms out...lucky i wasn't to much of a smart arse to the nice lady cop...:devil2:

[swbarnett]

Why is it, people complain the loudest about the "stupid" laws which are actually only the ones they get caught breaking, or the ones they find inconvenient at the time. What gives ANY of us the "RIGHT" to pick and choose WHICH law they WILL, or WON'T obey. Personal (in)convenience was never a serious factor considered, in the process (REASON FOR) a LAW being enacted. WE ALL KNOW THE RULES.
Laws are a mechanism for the majority of society to impose their views and morals on the minority in order to create a society that the majority are happy to live in (at least that's what they're supposed to be).

On the most part this works well as it is clear why a law exists and that the law at least goes some way to creating conditions in society that the majority want.

The trouble with the laws against exceeding the posted speed limit is that we are led to believe that they are there to improve public safety (a laudable goal), however, it becomes increasingly clear that simply staying below a seemingly randomly selected number does nothing to achieve that stated goal.

[spudchucka]

I should have asked if any of our resident :Police: had anything constructive to add?

He did, you just seemed to have missed it.

[spudchucka]

, however, it becomes increasingly clear that simply staying below a seemingly randomly selected number does nothing to achieve that stated goal.

Until it is your turn to get smacked into head on by another vehicle travelling at , below or above that seemingly randomly selected number, then it becomes quite painfully clear why we have speed limits.

[Mikkel]

furthermore, I have found all the resident officers to be good guys and helpfull, but they will take the piss at times as they are human.

I demand to see their certificate for doing urine samples - NOW! Either that or this goes international!

[swbarnett]

Until it is your turn to get smacked into head on by another vehicle travelling at , below or above that seemingly randomly selected number, then it becomes quite painfully clear why we have speed limits.
Agreed. Given that you hit in the first place it's best to be as slow as possible (that's what brakes are for). However, speed limits have nothing to do with this. Two vehicles having a head-on both travelling just under the speed limit can produce some pretty horrific consequences (especially if one's a bike). Being under the limit is irrelevant, what's important is things like being able to stop in half your visibility etc.. i.e riding to the conditions. This will often involve riding well under the speed limit on windy roads but does not preclude being over it in the right circumstances.

[Coldrider]

If you give speed a number and limit then no one has to think, the driver or mister plod.

[swbarnett]

If you give speed a number and limit then no one has to think, the driver or mister plod.
Exactly. Some see this as a positive. Personally, I think that far too much thinking has been taken away from the driver. Because of the use it or lose it principle, the less one has to think the less capable of thinking one becomes. On the road this translates into brain dead drivers who can't rub two brain cells together when the have to.

[Banesto John]

Cool. Lets make speed limits subjective, then everyone can decide how fast is safe.

Once upon a time a bloke got airborne in Ferndale Rd, Mt Wellington. Took out the front of a house. Told me he does that speed all the time and it is perfectly safe. Now, oif the speed limit was sibjective, how could I argue with him?

I guess the problem is that we all have a different idea of what is safe. Tossers in their Poorches all seem to think it's safe to do 100 in my street, while wanting us to make the plebs in the Corrollers stick to 40. Y'see, we all expect the rules to apply to everyone but us.

We often hear that people should be allowed to make more of their own decisions, then we hear the comments about all the idiots on the road. Maybe these idiots could be exempted from any subjective limit.

Rant over.

He can get you going in the same direction using a Stalker Dual DSR.

http://www.stalkerradar.com/law_dsr.shtml

[davereid]

My understanding of doppler radar is that there needs to be a significant difference in speed between the returns from the two pulses the radar puts out (one to the target, the other to the ground) otherwise an accurate speed over ground measurement of the target cannot be made.

This means that the radar cannot measure the speed of targets travelling in the same direction, they either have to be oncoming or the patrol vehicle has to be stationary.

Yes, there is a problem in this regard to radar units, but it does not preclude the use of them if you are following a target.

The reflected signal that the radar unit "hears" depends on the speed of the target vehicle. Of course, it also depends on the speed of the police car, as it actually hears the relative doppler shift.

In other words, you have to know the speed of the police car as well as the target vehicle.

So the speed of the police car is obtained by using an antenna pointed at the road.

As long as there is only road or stationary objects there, the radar unit now knows the speed of the police car.

Of course, if the police car is following the target vehicle very closely, this beam might report the speed of the police car relative to the followed car, rather than the road. (I say might, because the DSR specification doesn't tell us the direction the antenna points, or it beam width. We know it is susceptable to this problem - we just don't know by how much.)

If this were to occur, the radar would inflate the speed of the target vehicle.

Another bug..
Early models of the radar unit (including to the best of my information all NZ units) can't tell which way the target vehicle is travelling - ie toward or away from the police car.

The operator has to assess which vehicle the radar is looking at, and select the travel direction.

So, what errors can occur ?

An example, is the radar operator is doing 80 km/hr, and is following a motorcyclist who is 50m in front (2 seconds travel time).

In the other lane, 400m away is a truck, travelling slowly, and approaching the radar operator at 55 km/hr.

The radar operator has assumed the motorcyclist is the radars target, and its the lock button.

In this situation, the radar unit may report the trucks speed not the motorcyclist. As the truck is closing on the policecar at 80+55 = 135 km/hr this is the ticket the biker would get.

By the time the biker has stopped, the truck is long forgotten by biker and policeman alike !

[FJRider]

The trouble with the laws against exceeding the posted speed limit is that we are led to believe that they are there to improve public safety (a laudable goal), however, it becomes increasingly clear that simply staying below a seemingly randomly selected number does nothing to achieve that stated goal.

As always, limits are set are a compromise to ensure the safety of ALL road users. Not all road users have the same driving / riding skills, or a vehicle capable of safe high(er) speeds. Add into this "equation" the attitude / mind set of the road users who THINK they have the ability / vehicle capable of high(er) speed, but DON'T. Do you want to be on the SAME piece of road as THEM, AT THE SAME TIME ???

[spudchucka]

Agreed. Given that you hit in the first place it's best to be as slow as possible (that's what brakes are for). However, speed limits have nothing to do with this. Two vehicles having a head-on both travelling just under the speed limit can produce some pretty horrific consequences (especially if one's a bike). Being under the limit is irrelevant, what's important is things like being able to stop in half your visibility etc.. i.e riding to the conditions. This will often involve riding well under the speed limit on windy roads but does not preclude being over it in the right circumstances.

All quite true but what about the guy coming the other way that isn't driving to the conditions, would you appreciate the presence of a police officer on the road keeping speeds down then?

Speed limits are there simply to reduce the risk, human bodies can only withstand so much force.

However it would all be irrelevant if drivers would just stay on their own side of the road and obey the give way rules etc

[spudchucka]

If you give speed a number and limit then no one has to think, the driver or mister plod.

Whether or not you engage your brain when you drive is an individual responsibility issue. If you are the type that drives along in a trance, blaming this or that then you should have your licence shredded.

[spudchucka]

Of course, if the police car is following the target vehicle very closely, this beam might report the speed of the police car relative to the followed car, rather than the road.

If a cop followed you that closely they wouldn't need a radar to know how fast you were going.

[FJRider]

furthermore, I have found all the resident officers to be good guys and helpfull, but they will take the piss at times as they are human.

AREN'T WE ALL ??? (human)

[hospitalfood]

AREN'T WE ALL ??? (human)

allegedly...........but there is no prooof it, and many posts ( including my own ) make me wonder ???

[jafar]

allegedly...........but there is no prooof it, and many posts ( including my own ) make me wonder ???

You said it :spudflip::spudflip:

[Patrick]

Handing out a ticket - thats the way it works. No problem there.

But giving a policeman the power to see the alledged offence, make a road side decision as to guilt, and roll out the punishment... hmm, thats facist allright !

No it isn't... shooting the offender then impounding and selling the bike to pay for the bullet... THAT is facism...!!!


might start to realise that they and all of us share the roads with these wankers.

Oi... who you calling wankers? Whats your QID? If not given i am taking this international... nah... global.... nah... galactic... nah... universal... nah... oh feck it.



This means that the radar cannot measure the speed of targets travelling in the same direction, they either have to be oncoming or the patrol vehicle has to be stationary.

Simply bollocks... same lane mode front antenna for a car ahead of you, same lane mode rear antenna for a car rapidly approaching from behind... all the while the patrol car is in motion....

Front and rear while stationary, moving, while eating donus even...


Of course, if the police car is following the target vehicle very closely, and..........

An example, is the radar operator is doing 80 km/hr, and is following a motorcyclist who is 50m in front (2 seconds travel time).

In the other lane, 400m away is a truck, travelling slowly, and approaching the radar operator at 55 km/hr.

The radar operator has assumed the motorcyclist is the radars target, and its the lock button.

In this situation, the radar unit may report the trucks speed not the motorcyclist. As the truck is closing on the policecar at 80+55 = 135 km/hr this is the ticket the biker would get.

By the time the biker has stopped, the truck is long forgotten by biker and policeman alike !

Part 1... is the cars speedo not going? It is called pursuit mode... speed taken from the certified speedo of the patrol car.

As for the example, if the patrol is doing 80 and the bike is only slowly pulling away, then he clearly is not doing 135. If it was leaving him in dust and pulling away at 135, then, well... same lane mode has him screwed... The "older ones" are in the museum.

[hospitalfood]

You said it :spudflip::spudflip:

your an alien if i ever met one......how you doing ? keeping those other mates of mine out of trouble ?

[jafar]

your an alien if i ever met one......how you doing ? keeping those other mates of mine out of trouble ?

Alien :eek:
Doing ok thanks mate,
Was wondering how your getting on, as the only place you can get to now is the pub down the road :pinch::devil2:

[hospitalfood]

Alien :eek:
Doing ok thanks mate,
Was wondering how your getting on, as the only place you can get to now is the pub down the road :pinch::devil2:

life is life is life...............between finding work, doing up the house, promoting my business and trying not to lose my licence and pay lots of fines I find time to sleep and stress.........dont manage to walk that 100 meters to the pub.:angry2:

[jafar]

life is life is life...............between finding work, doing up the house, promoting my business and trying not to lose my licence and pay lots of fines I find time to sleep and stress.........dont manage to walk that 100 meters to the pub.:angry2:

Oh man thats gotta suck , your so close to the pub you could almost taste it from your place :innocent:
Whats the business your promoting ??

[hospitalfood]

photography, same old.
think her and I may start a branding / advertising agency as well. bit of a gap in the market up here for good company branding and adds. the stuff you see and hear in these parts makes you cry........

[Mikkel]

The reflected signal that the radar unit "hears" depends on the speed of the target vehicle. Of course, it also depends on the speed of the police car, as it actually hears the relative doppler shift.

Now, it's a few years since last time I actually used the theory of relativity in regards to an actual problem.

However, I do seem to recall that the speed of the vehicle emitting the signal has no impact whatsoever upon the doppler shift.

The doppler shift depends only upon the velocity of the surface from which it is reflected.

The problem is this: electro-magnetic (EM) radiation always travels at c/n (where c is the speed of light in vacuum and n is the refractive index of the medium effectively 1 for most gasses). It doesn't matter whether the emitter is moving or stationary - the EM radiation travels at c, this is one of the things about the theory of relativity that is hard to grasp...

Now as the EM wave travels through space from the emitter to the reflecting surface at the speed c there will be an infinitesimal displacement of the surface from the time of one wavefront being reflected 'til the next one is being reflected. Since the wave travels back towards the emitter at the speed c a change in the spacing between the wavefronts (frequency) can be observed. That frequency change is the doppler shift and that is used to determine the speed of the target.

Bearing this in mind I can not fathom the complication of a "grounding antenna"...

Edit: Oh btw. Laser guns work on the principle of range finding and calculating the speed by measuring two ranges inside a given time slot. Indeed if you used a range finding device to measure the speed of another vehicle you have to take the observers velocity into account.

[jafar]

photography, same old.
think her and I may start a branding / advertising agency as well. bit of a gap in the market up here for good company branding and adds. the stuff you see and hear in these parts makes you cry........

Sounds like a good idea , I'm sure half the slogans are dreamed up while they are stoned:spanking:

[FJRider]

try an anti speeding campaign ???

[swbarnett]

Cool. Lets make speed limits subjective, then everyone can decide how fast is safe.
Well, yes, this is the idea. Then, if you get it wrong and cause an accident you get the book thrown at you.


Once upon a time a bloke got airborne in Ferndale Rd, Mt Wellington. Took out the front of a house. Told me he does that speed all the time and it is perfectly safe. Now, oif the speed limit was sibjective, how could I argue with him?
Well, the limit is subjective and obviously this guy got it wrong. That's where the cops come in. If he gets it wrong too often then he's proven he's not fit to drive and he gets his license taken away.


I guess the problem is that we all have a different idea of what is safe. Tossers in their Poorches all seem to think it's safe to do 100 in my street, while wanting us to make the plebs in the Corrollers stick to 40. Y'see, we all expect the rules to apply to everyone but us.
No, I just expect that the rules that are there make sense. In the case you describe a charge of speed not suitable for the conditions would be perfectly adequate, you don't need a hard and fast speed limit (although I do agree that a suggested maximum speed for the area would be a good idea). Also, I do accept that urban areas are somewhat different to open road areas (which is mainly what I'm talking about).


We often hear that people should be allowed to make more of their own decisions, then we hear the comments about all the idiots on the road.
We have idiots because we don't allow people to think. We get what we deserve.

[swbarnett]

As always, limits are set are a compromise to ensure the safety of ALL road users. Not all road users have the same driving / riding skills, or a vehicle capable of safe high(er) speeds. Add into this "equation" the attitude / mind set of the road users who THINK they have the ability / vehicle capable of high(er) speed, but DON'T. Do you want to be on the SAME piece of road as THEM, AT THE SAME TIME ???
If it preserves my freedom and my ability to actually enjoy life, then most definately yes. I have been in this situation and I'm still alive. I also expect the police to stop anyone they see that they consider to be driving dangerously and treat them accordingly.

And before you ask, I'd also be happy with my loved ones being in the same position. Over a life time the risk to my freedom is far greater than any risk to my physical body. I'd rather live one day as a free man than a life as a slave to other's insecurities.

[swbarnett]

All quite true but what about the guy coming the other way that isn't driving to the conditions, would you appreciate the presence of a police officer on the road keeping speeds down then?
No. I'd appreciate the presence of a police officer on the road keeping the road safe within reason. Just because someone is above the limit does not make them automatically dangerous. And just because they're below the speed limit doesn't make them automatically safe.


Speed limits are there simply to reduce the risk, human bodies can only withstand so much force.
Lower speed of impact is relevant only if a crash occurs in the first place. Using your logic we should all riding under 8kph as that is the impact threshold for braking bones.


However it would all be irrelevant if drivers would just stay on their own side of the road and obey the give way rules etc
But they don't so I drive with an appropriate margin of error to take account of that fact. I don't always have to be below the speed limit to achieve this.


Whether or not you engage your brain when you drive is an individual responsibility issue. If you are the type that drives along in a trance, blaming this or that then you should have your licence shredded.
Agreed, on both points. However, in practice there is a perfectly natural human tendency to not think if you don't have to. We are programmed by evolution to conserve energy wherever possible. If our subconscious mind is led to believe that thinking will not be required we get out of the habit. People need to be prodded in to thinking so that the skill is retained. Keeping the road rules simple is all well and good but when it gets to the point that an inebriated toad could drive people stop doing what little thinking they were and the problem just gets worse. And when they do think it's only to the point of "I'm under the speed limit so I must be safe".

[spudchucka]

No. I'd appreciate the presence of a police officer on the road keeping the road safe within reason. Just because someone is above the limit does not make them automatically dangerous. And just because they're below the speed limit doesn't make them automatically safe.All true. But tell me, how do you account for the human variables when judging what is a safe travelling speed for one person or another in any given driving environment?


Lower speed of impact is relevant only if a crash occurs in the first place. Using your logic we should all riding under 8kph as that is the impact threshold for braking bones.You take my logic completely out of context. I've never advocated caution to the point of stagnation. 100kph is a reasonable maximum speed when you take into consideration the strength of today's vehicle fleet and the frailty of the human body. Your chances of surviving a crash improve if you travel within the maximum speed limits. If we could guarantee a perfect world where nobody ever crashes then you could merrily travel at what ever speed you wanted, but that ain't ever going to happen.


But they don't so I drive with an appropriate margin of error to take account of that fact. I don't always have to be below the speed limit to achieve this.Something that many never seem to be able to grasp the concept of.


Agreed, on both points. However, in practice there is a perfectly natural human tendency to not think if you don't have to. We are programmed by evolution to conserve energy wherever possible. If our subconscious mind is led to believe that thinking will not be required we get out of the habit. People need to be prodded in to thinking so that the skill is retained. Keeping the road rules simple is all well and good but when it gets to the point that an inebriated toad could drive people stop doing what little thinking they were and the problem just gets worse. And when they do think it's only to the point of "I'm under the speed limit so I must be safe".Perhaps we should have computers in our cars that project Mensa crosswords or Suduko puzzles onto a heads up display in order to keep our minds active while we drive?

All it takes is for a driver to take responsibility for the fact that driving on a public road is a matter to be taken quite seriously as there are quite significant risks associated with it and make sure that they are switched on whenever they drive.

And in all my years of attending car crashes I have never once come across a person who having been involved in a crash said that they thought they would be safe because they were driving below the speed limit. That notion is simply absurd.

[onearmedbandit]

If we could guarantee a perfect world where nobody ever crashes then you could merrily travel at what ever speed you wanted, but that ain't ever going to happen.



If we take the main problem out of the equation, ie remove the human driver and replace it with an automated system, then we could have that scenario. As much as I love driving and riding, I know it's a fucking risky game that is quite idiotic. I mean, here with have imperfect humans, with lots of distractions, controlling a 1500kg missile on open roads at 100km/h heading towards another one of these missiles with only a 2m gap and a white line separating them. It's simply a recipe for disaster. It's been said that if motorbikes were invented today they would not see the day of light, I believe the same applies for any human operated vehicle in public places.

[spudchucka]

If we take the main problem out of the equation, ie remove the human driver and replace it with an automated system, then we could have that scenario.

It may happen one day but it will be a sad day because it will be so f&%ken boring.

[FJRider]

Just because someone is above the limit does not make them automatically dangerous.

True, but thats NOT not the wording in law.

And just because they're below the speed limit doesn't make them automatically safe.

But most think, if they're BELOW the limit, they CAN / ARE ALLOWED to go faster.

Lower speed of impact is relevant only if a crash occurs in the first place. Using your logic we should all riding under 8kph as that is the impact threshold for braking bones.

Speed of STOPPING is relevant, 100 km's to zero when you hit a power pole makes your eye's water...a bit

But they don't so I drive with an appropriate margin of error to take account of that fact. I don't always have to be below the speed limit to achieve this.

You MAY do, but those that DON'T, can't explain what "margin of error" means.


However, in practice there is a perfectly natural human tendency to not think if you don't have to.

SOME JUST DON'T THINK

We are programmed by evolution to conserve energy wherever possible. If our subconscious mind is led to believe that thinking will not be required we get out of the habit. People need to be prodded in to thinking so that the skill is retained. Keeping the road rules simple is all well and good but when it gets to the point that an inebriated toad could drive people stop doing what little thinking they were and the problem just gets worse. And when they do think it's only to the point of "I'm under the speed limit so I must be safe".

Most believe, THEIR skill levels are BEYOND reproach. From the day they get their licence. AND consider it an INSULT, if you suggest otherwise

TO STAY SAFE... THINKING IS REQUIRED.

[Soul.Trader]

Well, yes, this is the idea. Then, if you get it wrong and cause an accident you get the book thrown at you.

Or, more colloquially known as "putting the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff".

[candor]

Haven't read full thread due to length so I might be repeating stuff alrerady covered.

I don't believe they can establish you were over 140 if reading was 142 as I don't think the tool is more accurate than to 5ks. Good lawyer could argue that the equipment doesn't allow certainty you were over the licence loss limit

[spudchucka]

Haven't read full thread due to length so I might be repeating stuff alrerady covered.

I don't believe they can establish you were over 140 if reading was 142 as I don't think the tool is more accurate than to 5ks. Good lawyer could argue that the equipment doesn't allow certainty you were over the licence loss limit

If you were able to convince a judge of that it wouldn't make any difference to the outcome because the roadside suspension is effective immediately, not the result of a court hearing.

Nor would it make any difference to the subsequent charges since it won't be a speed dangerous charge, it will only be a exceeds 100kph charge.

[scumdog]

Haven't read full thread due to length so I might be repeating stuff alrerady covered.

I don't believe they can establish you were over 140 if reading was 142 as I don't think the tool is more accurate than to 5ks. Good lawyer could argue that the equipment doesn't allow certainty you were over the licence loss limit


You are.

It has been covered a quadzillion times on KB.:argh:

If it WAS as simple as you suggest there would be bugger all speeding tickets getting issued as the cop would know the judge would dismiss then.:wacko:

[Grahameeboy]

You are.

It has been covered a quadzillion times on KB.:argh:

If it WAS as simple as you suggest there would be bugger all speeding tickets getting issued as the cop would know the judge would dismiss then.:wacko:

Scummy...you are talking too much sense this morning...stop it

[candor]

Thought so = it probably here I learnt it - but I didn't know that defending it would not undo the suspension, this must be the only guilty till proven innocent thing? Is it a longer suspension for going over 200 :devil2:

[MaxB]

Thought so = it probably here I learnt it - but I didn't know that defending it would not undo the suspension, this must be the only guilty till proven innocent thing? Is it a longer suspension for going over 200 :devil2:

It depends what you are charged with. Unlike tickets, there can be a big differences in penalties imposed in court hearings. You will always get the 28 day walk.

If the offence is exceeding 100km/h (say doing 200km/h) you can look forward to a 28 day walk, guaranteed 50 points, a court appearance (or plea by letter) and a $1000+ fine/costs. This is for a single offence. And you would be lucky.

If however you are charged with a careless or dangerous driving charge then things start to get worse. They can basically choose from a huge range of penalties but careless is typically 3 months plus big $$$ and dangerous is 6 months plus very big $$$. If you have done it before it will be worse this time. If you hurt someone they can jail you. But often don't.

I know people that have been charged with dangerous driving at 145 ks and speeding at around 200 ks. The aggravating factors were the 145 was near Taupo on a holiday weekend and overtaking traffic. The 'almost 200' was a weekday in the South Island on a lonely straight and the rider stopped in a controlled fashion when ordered to and he fessed up. Maybe they took pity 'cos he had to pay to get the bike and himself back to Auckland?

[swbarnett]

All true. But tell me, how do you account for the human variables when judging what is a safe travelling speed for one person or another in any given driving environment?
Difficult, I agree. Speed limits certainly don't do this.


You take my logic completely out of context. I've never advocated caution to the point of stagnation.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you had. I just don't understand why 100kph is such a magic number.


100kph is a reasonable maximum speed when you take into consideration the strength of today's vehicle fleet
Do you mean strength or their ability to protect the occupants in a crash? How do bikes figure in this?
Also if a 200kph impact speed (head-on at 100kph) is acceptable why are some stretches of road being reduced to 80kph?


Something that many never seem to be able to grasp the concept of.
Perhaps this is where increased education comes in?


Perhaps we should have computers in our cars that project Mensa crosswords or Suduko puzzles onto a heads up display in order to keep our minds active while we drive?
Apart from how distracting this would be this is not what I meant at all. What I'm talking about is a cause and effect relationship. There seems to be this notion that you can drive perfectly safely without thinking. This is because, most of the time, this is true. It's only on the rare occasion that not thinking leads to an accident. What I'm advocating is that driving is made sufficiently complex (but not too complex) that you have to think to drive. This way the mind is on all the time. The circumstances that will possibly lead to an accident will most of the time not happen in the first place and when they do the driver will be better equipped to deal with them.

This has been demonstrated in some European towns when they removed all traffic lights and road signs.


All it takes is for a driver to take responsibility for the fact that driving on a public road is a matter to be taken quite seriously as there are quite significant risks associated with it and make sure that they are switched on whenever they drive.
But if the driver is lulled into a false sense of security this is likely to be thought unnecessary.


And in all my years of attending car crashes I have never once come across a person who having been involved in a crash said that they thought they would be safe because they were driving below the speed limit. That notion is simply absurd.
Maybe. Yet that's what the anti-speed signs are trying to tell us.

[swbarnett]

Most believe, THEIR skill levels are BEYOND reproach. From the day they get their licence. AND consider it an INSULT, if you suggest otherwise
A ticket for just being over the posted limit will not change this. One for not riding to the conditions just might.


TO STAY SAFE... THINKING IS REQUIRED.
Agreed. So why do we try to tell them otherwise by over simplifying things on the road?

[swbarnett]

Or, more colloquially known as "putting the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff".
If it's good enough for a murder victim, why not a road accident victim?

[spudchucka]

Thought so = it probably here I learnt it - but I didn't know that defending it would not undo the suspension, this must be the only guilty till proven innocent thing? Is it a longer suspension for going over 200 :devil2:

As far as I know you can appeal a roadside suspension but at the pace the courts move it would probably be way longer than 28 days before you even get a chance to get into court.

Over 200? Same roadside suspension but expect also to get arrested and charged with dangerous speed, which will result in a minimum 6 months disqualification if found guilty.

[spudchucka]

They can basically choose from a huge range of penalties but careless is typically 3 months plus big $$$ and dangerous is 6 months plus very big $$$.

Careless driving is a fine only charge, there is no mandatory disqualification. You can still get disqualified but it is at the discretion of the court, whereas a dangerous conviction it is mandatory.

[spudchucka]

Difficult, I agree. Speed limits certainly don't do this.No they don't but if everyone sticks to them it has the net effect of reducing the harm caused when those human variables enter the equation.


Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you had. I just don't understand why 100kph is such a magic number.Do you remember when it was 80? I can't answer that with any authority but it seems obvious to me that it simply comes down to the limits that vehicles & roads are manufactured to, the fact that so many different types of vehicles share the roads and that the roads have to be safe for all users regardless of age or ability.


Do you mean strength or their ability to protect the occupants in a crash? How do bikes figure in this?
Also if a 200kph impact speed (head-on at 100kph) is acceptable why are some stretches of road being reduced to 80kph?
That's a big part of it.
Bikes don't feature in it at all.
Those sections of road are reduced usually because of an environmental issue or because of significant historical crash data that suggests a lower speed limit might be appropriate.


Perhaps this is where increased education comes in?Yes, but it will take more of a national attitude adjustment to make any significant difference to road safety.


There seems to be this notion that you can drive perfectly safely without thinking.Its because most of us are just totally lackadaisical in our attitudes towards driving. It has everything to do with attitudes and nothing whatsoever to do with subliminal messages.


This has been demonstrated in some European towns when they removed all traffic lights and road signs.I'll take your word for it.


But if the driver is lulled into a false sense of security this is likely to be thought unnecessary.You are simply highlighting the inherent stupidity of the average motorist. If they are so thick that they can't see the risks associated with road use or they are so slack that they don't care then they need to be permanently removed from the roads.


Maybe. Yet that's what the anti-speed signs are trying to tell us.Not maybe, its a fact. I have to say that I think it is just your perception as I have never heard any other person express this, in particular none of the persons that I have dealt with who have been involved in road crashes, (which would number in the thousands).

[boomer]

hi folks

first a thanks to all that have replied and a massive thanks to those who have gone above and beyond the call. you know who you are.

we have recieved heaps of help and good advice.

Morcs mate.........sorry to hear.

we passed ( overtake on straight ) a mufti car, he turned his radar on as we pulled back in and his reading of our speed was 142 km/h.

we have decided it is worth fighting this. there is the matter of weather his radar is correct ? has been calibrated correctly and in the specified timeframe ?
if his car has / had a current warrant / rego ?
I have learnt that the police officer must have done his job correctly, and his equipment must be up to scratch. this all comes into play before we even look at weather it is ok to book both of us with an alleged reading that has only come from one bike.

I dont have massive hopes to be dashed, but I have heard some good news and interesting facts. enough for me to think it is worth a bit of a fight as the officers actions seem unreasonable to me.

once again thanks all

mate, you're trying to weasel out of something by pointing the finger at someone else.

Grow some balls and man up instead of being a slimey no good for nothing, wasting our tax's.


pay the bill and move on.

[swbarnett]

No they don't but if everyone sticks to them it has the net effect of reducing the harm caused when those human variables enter the equation.
And if everybody was of the same religion there'd be a lot fewer wars too.


Do you remember when it was 80?
Yes, I do.


I can't answer that with any authority but it seems obvious to me that it simply comes down to the limits that vehicles & roads are manufactured to,
In which case the speed limit should be raised as the average vehicle fleet becomes safer in higher speed crashes.


the fact that so many different types of vehicles share the roads and that the roads have to be safe for all users regardless of age or ability.
I think this is the crux of where we differ. I don't believe that this level of safety is achievable and I certainly don't think it's desirable. If I did I wouldn't ride bikes. Absolute safety just has too high a price.


Bikes don't feature in it at all.
Herein lies a big part of the problem. We're not accepted as legitimate road users when it comes to the policy makers.


Those sections of road are reduced usually because of an environmental issue or because of significant historical crash data that suggests a lower speed limit might be appropriate.
Are you saying that on some roads a 200kph impact is acceptable but on others only a 160kph impact is acceptable? I agree that, based on visibility and other road factors the appropriate speed will be lower on some roads but this is about crash avoidance, not crash survival.


Yes, but it will take more of a national attitude adjustment to make any significant difference to road safety.
If the population at large becomes concerned about road safety they'll start treating driving with the respect it deserves. The attitude of drivers is the main problem (and consequently why safe drivers that happen to be over the speed limit become scapegoats).


You are simply highlighting the inherent stupidity of the average motorist. If they are so thick that they can't see the risks associated with road use or they are so slack that they don't care then they need to be permanently removed from the roads.
This would remove most of today's drivers from the road. I can attest that this would not necessarily be a bad thing (in 1997 there was 1 car for every 1350 people in Zurich* and the driving as far as I saw was exemplary).

*The public transport is among the best in the world.

If we're to lower the stupidity level of the average motorist we have to make them think. Not just on the road but in all areas of life from the cradle to the grave.


Not maybe, its a fact.
I'll take your word for this in the absence of evidence to the contrary (It was based mainly on statements made on KB).

[scumdog]

This has been demonstrated in some European towns when they removed all traffic lights and road signs.


But in good 'ol New Zealand people sail right through Give Way signs, Stop sign and even traffic lights without slowing down, crash into some poor clod minding his own business and say "Oh, I never noticed the (name one of the above)":doh:

And as for uncontrolled intersections???!! don't even start.:shit:

[scumdog]

In which case the speed limit should be raised as the average vehicle fleet becomes safer in higher speed crashes.

Sooooo, in a nutshell you're saying: as the fleet gets safer and less people get killed we should raise the speed limit to keep the road toll where it is at present?????:crazy:

[CookMySock]

mate, you're trying to weasel out of something by pointing the finger at someone else.Sure he is. Its the traditional kiwi male thing to do. I think he's completely screwed in this case, but no harm in trying :innocent:


Grow some balls and man up instead of being a slimey no good for nothing, wasting out tax's. pay the bill and move on.Calling people names is weak. It's also the last step in the circle of violence before the decision to hit.

DB

[boomer]

Sure he is. Its the traditional kiwi male thing to do. I think he's completely screwed in this case, but no harm in trying :innocent:

Calling people names is weak. It's also the last step in the circle of violence before the decision to hit.

DB


thanks DB.. where shall i send the money to? :spudwave:

and here's another observation or comment.. Isn't calling yourself dangerbastard and owning a hyosung an oxymoron? Silly bastard seems more apt :p

lollies.



:clap:

[CookMySock]

and here's another observation or comment.. Isn't calling yourself dangerbastard and owning a hyosung an oxymoron? Silly bastard seems more apt :p lollies.:clap::p cmon maaaan it was cheap, and I'm having fun on it.. ride one and you will see they are not so woosey. DangerousBastard is just a stupid nickname - I'm too old, tired, and burned to be truly dangerous.

DB

[Jantar]

......Do you remember when it was 80? .....

Yes, and I also remember before it was 50 mph (80 kmh), when it was 55 mph (88 kmh). The speed limit was dropped without warning to 80 kmh during the first week of december 1973. I was on tour at the time, and not having a radio on the bike, nor getting a paper delivered to my tent, I found out the hard way when a nice traffic officer gave me a warning for doing 55 mph when the speed limit was 50 mph.

However, some interesting statistics came out of New Zealand's playing with speed limits.

In the ten years leading up to the drop in the New Zealand speed limit, an average of 608 New Zealanders had died on the roads each year.

In the ten years that followed the drop from 100 kph down to 80 kph, an average of 707 New Zealanders died on the roads each year: in other words, the new, lower New Zealand speed limit coincided with a 17% increase in road deaths. Starting to get the picture?

Then, in 1985, the New Zealand Government decided to raise the speed limit again, from 80kph back up to 100kph. The average number of New Zealanders killed on the roads each year was 699, a slight drop when compared with the ten years under a lower speed limit.

Also we must bear in mind the increasing number of vehicles on the roads each year over those 30 years, and the opening up of roads to general goods carriage (ie trucks) when everything prior to the mid 80s had to go by rail.

The point that comes out of it is that higher speeds do lead to an increased chance of death in the event of an accident, but with less restrictive speed limits there are fewer accidents in the first place. I won't even try to comment on the reason for this, other than to say that is some major research going on in the USA right now because they found the same thing.

Those states that raised their speed limits found a drop in the number of road fatalities compared to the states that didn't raise their speed limits.

[FJRider]

Statistics can prove ANYTHING the compiler want to prove, if they include (or EXCLUDE) the (ir)relevant information. ACC do this with "motorcycle" accident numbers.

[FJRider]

thanks DB.. where shall i send the money to? :spudwave:

and here's another observation or comment.. Isn't calling yourself dangerbastard and owning a hyosung an oxymoron? Silly bastard seems more apt :p

lollies.



:clap:

Name calling a bit y'self, the likelyhood is HIS insurance,fuel costs,and speeding ticket/court costs are a lot less than yours. Be careful who you call a SILLY BASTARD.

[FJRider]

But in good 'ol New Zealand people sail right through Give Way signs, Stop sign and even traffic lights without slowing down, crash into some poor clod minding his own business and say "Oh, I never noticed the (name one of the above)":doh:

And as for uncontrolled intersections???!! don't even start.:shit:

The same goes for motorcycle verses car "accidents", Fiirst words out of the cage drivers mouth...I NEVER SAW HIM OFFICER. Maybe eye-sight tests should be tougher to pass ???

[FJRider]

A ticket for just being over the posted limit will not change this. One for not riding to the conditions just might.


Agreed. So why do we try to tell them otherwise by over simplifying things on the road?

Speeding, or not riding to the conditions, has a lot to do with suggested lack of skill levels. JUST AS MUCH AS BAD DECISION MAKING IS.

Complicated laws/rules are difficult to remember and HARDER to enforce. The K.I.S.S. theory, keep it simple stupid.

The laws are set for the "benefit" of the "lowest common denominator" road user. And if you have difficulty understanding (obeying) the "simple" rules, this could be YOU !!!

[Jantar]

Statistics can prove ANYTHING the compiler want to prove, if they include (or EXCLUDE) the (ir)relevant information. ....

This is a common error. Statistics cannot prove or disprove anything, they can only indicate trends and corelations, and hence give an idea of possible cause and effect. It is when statistics are misused to "prove" a point that we get hard and fast rules that don't work for the purpose intended.


The same goes for motorcycle verses car "accidents", Fiirst words out of the cage drivers mouth...I NEVER SAW HIM OFFICER. Maybe eye-sight tests should be tougher to pass ???

Not tougher, just more practical. reading letters on an eye chart doesn't show how observant someone is to their surroundings.


... And if you have difficulty understanding (obeying) the "simple" rules, this could be YOU !!!

Understanding, and obeying, are two totally different things. I understand that the speed limits are set and imposed because they are the "greatest enforceable risk" (MoT statement), not the greatest causitive risk. So why should a rule that is set for revenue gathering, rather than road safety, be any easier to obey because we understand it better?

[candor]

higher speeds do lead to an increased chance of death in the event of an accident, but with less restrictive speed limits there are fewer accidents in the first place. I won't even try to comment on the reason for this, other than to say that is some major research going on in the USA right now because they found the same thing.
.

Overseas research is suggesting less fatigue related crashes among those prone eg sleep apnoea sufferers where limits are higher due to more adrenalin focussing attention at higher speeds.
Source - Akilla NZ drowsy driving campaign

[FJRider]

This is a common error. Statistics cannot prove or disprove anything, they can only indicate trends and corelations, and hence give an idea of possible cause and effect. It is when statistics are misused to "prove" a point that we get hard and fast rules that don't work for the purpose intended.



Not tougher, just more practical. reading letters on an eye chart doesn't show how observant someone is to their surroundings.



Understanding, and obeying, are two totally different things. I understand that the speed limits are set and imposed because they are the "greatest enforceable risk" (MoT statement), not the greatest causitive risk. So why should a rule that is set for revenue gathering, rather than road safety, be any easier to obey because we understand it better?

The words "indicate" and "possible" are the key words, but CANNOT "prove" a point, and should not be used to attempt this. Sadly it is. BY STATISTICS NEW ZEALAND. About every four years the census forms get sent out...Remember the silly questions ...and the silly answers given ???
THESE ARE THE BASIS OF POLICY AND LAW.

Whats on the eye chart matters little, if your texting the missus or slapping the kids (or dog because you're not allowed to smack kids now) in the back seat or away in a dreamworld, in a galaxy far far away.

If you understand the rules AND PENALTYS for breaking them, there should'nt be such a fuss when WE GET CAUGHT !!! Maybe its a sign of a wealthy society when we can "afford" the fines. Maybe the fines were'nt intended as revinue gathering, but the frequency of speeding turns it into a "tidy little earner"

[spudchucka]

And if everybody was of the same religion there'd be a lot fewer wars too.


Yes, I do.


In which case the speed limit should be raised as the average vehicle fleet becomes safer in higher speed crashes.


I think this is the crux of where we differ. I don't believe that this level of safety is achievable and I certainly don't think it's desirable. If I did I wouldn't ride bikes. Absolute safety just has too high a price.


Herein lies a big part of the problem. We're not accepted as legitimate road users when it comes to the policy makers.


Are you saying that on some roads a 200kph impact is acceptable but on others only a 160kph impact is acceptable? I agree that, based on visibility and other road factors the appropriate speed will be lower on some roads but this is about crash avoidance, not crash survival.


If the population at large becomes concerned about road safety they'll start treating driving with the respect it deserves. The attitude of drivers is the main problem (and consequently why safe drivers that happen to be over the speed limit become scapegoats).


This would remove most of today's drivers from the road. I can attest that this would not necessarily be a bad thing (in 1997 there was 1 car for every 1350 people in Zurich* and the driving as far as I saw was exemplary).

*The public transport is among the best in the world.

If we're to lower the stupidity level of the average motorist we have to make them think. Not just on the road but in all areas of life from the cradle to the grave.


I'll take your word for this in the absence of evidence to the contrary (It was based mainly on statements made on KB).

Mate all this multi quote posting is getting too much for me, I can't be bothered going over every little point. If you want to keep this going how about just one point at a time?

[spudchucka]

Sure he is. Its the traditional kiwi male thing to do.

Never accepting responsibility for your actions?

[duckonin]

You need a lesson hope you get busted hard, 100 k's +9 if you are lucky is the limit, 142 and you want every one to feel sorry for your arse, you paid your money and played the game and lost tough shit..:whistle:

[jrandom]

However, I do seem to recall that the speed of the vehicle emitting the signal has no impact whatsoever upon the doppler shift.

Doppler shift is relative to the observer.

You hear cars doppler-shifting as they drive past when you stand on the side of the road, but they make a constant-tone noise when you ride alongside them.

Same goes for EM radiation. If you change your velocity, the apparent frequency of any radiation emitted or reflected from another object will change.

Red-shifting stars seen in a telescope, f'rinstance - who's to say whether they're racing away from us, we're racing away from them, or it's a combination of both?

So when a cop car takes a measurement of another vehicle's speed via doppler-shift radar, the immediate result will be the velocity of the other vehicle relative to the patrol car.

I don't know how that's addressed in typical systems; I'd just plug the radar unit into a calibrated speedo signal, easiest way and accurate enough, but maybe it works differently. Any cops care to comment?


It doesn't matter whether the emitter is moving or stationary - the EM radiation travels at c...

... but the apparent frequency of its oscillation shifts up or down, is the key point. And that apparent frequency shift is entirely dependant on the relative speed of the observer and the emitter of the radiation.


this is one of the things about the theory of relativity that is hard to grasp...

You're a good cunt, but you can be a mite condescending sometimes. Particularly when you're getting something wrong.

;)

[spudchucka]

I don't know how that's addressed in typical systems; I'd just plug the radar unit into a calibrated speedo signal, easiest way and accurate enough, but maybe it works differently. Any cops care to comment?

The antenna takes a reading off the road surface to obtain the patrols ground speed, which in turn is used by the receiver to calculate the target speed. Both patrol speed and target speed are displayed on your radar readout.

[FJRider]

Never accepting responsibility for your actions?

15,000 solo mothers CAN'T be wrong.

[Mikkel]

The same goes for motorcycle verses car "accidents", Fiirst words out of the cage drivers mouth...I NEVER SAW HIM OFFICER. Maybe eye-sight tests should be tougher to pass ???

Eye-sight is of no use if people don't bother using their eyes in the first place.


You're a good cunt, but you can be a mite condescending sometimes. Particularly when you're getting something wrong.

;)

True, but I actually started out my post by saying I wasn't an authority on the matter... So I was right - it is pretty hard to grasp. ;)
In most ways the theory of relativity is a major mindfuck.

But yes, I was indeed wrong on that count. It's the relative speed you measured, the velocity of the emitter does factor into the equation.

[swbarnett]

Sooooo, in a nutshell you're saying: as the fleet gets safer and less people get killed we should raise the speed limit to keep the road toll where it is at present?????:crazy:
This assumes that there is a link between speed and the road toll. If this were true I see your point.

However, given that there is a link between speed and road toll (something which I do not accept). You're saying that 5 years ago we were happy for x number of deaths per year and now we're not? (otherwise the speed limit would've been lower then)

[swbarnett]

Speeding, or not riding to the conditions, has a lot to do with suggested lack of skill levels. JUST AS MUCH AS BAD DECISION MAKING IS.
Agreed.


Complicated laws/rules are difficult to remember and HARDER to enforce. The K.I.S.S. theory, keep it simple stupid.
Agreed. But there is a point where things are too simple. The human brain has a perfectly natural tendency to shut off when this is the case. We need to make people think in all areas of life, not jsut driving.


The laws are set for the "benefit" of the "lowest common denominator" road user. And if you have difficulty understanding (obeying) the "simple" rules, this could be YOU !!!
I have no problem understanding the rules. This does not, however, mean that I agree with them. I have a problem when it is becomes clear that the law does not achieve it's stated goal and imposes restrictions on people for no good reason.

[Roadrash]

Police radar can pick up 2 vehicles at 1 time, the front vehicle and the vehicle traveling at the fastest speed.

If you were in front but your mate traveling behind you at a slightly faster speed it will show both speeds on the radar.

They don't have to lock your speed, just sight it, so, yes he can take both your licence's, and no i wouldn't expect much sympathy from a Judge.

[spudchucka]

Police radar can pick up 2 vehicles at 1 time, the front vehicle and the vehicle traveling at the fastest speed..

The largest reflective object that provides the strongest signal, which isn't necessarily going to be the front vehicle.

[CookMySock]

[...] If you were in front but your mate traveling behind you at a slightly faster speed it will show both speeds on the radar.. [...] so, yes he can take both your licence'sThe cops have a hell of a job stopping two vehicles at the same time. If they wave over TWO bikes just make sure you are the last one, then ride right past the stopping rider.

"Geez sorry ocifer, I thought you wuz aksin that OTHER fella to stop. Genuine mistake! My bad."

I don't think the cops take much of this too personally.. if they did, they would have a mental breakdown in less than 5 years. Hell, its just their JOB its not like its their religion or anything.

DB

[FJRider]

We need to make people think in all areas of life, not just driving.


I have no problem understanding the rules. This does not, however, mean that I agree with them. I have a problem when it is becomes clear that the law does not achieve it's stated goal and imposes restrictions on people for no good reason.

Just how will you suggest we get people thinking ? TV campaign, adds in the papers, NEW laws, web sites disscussing the issues ?????


It matters little if you AGREE with the rules or not. Ignoring rules that dont achieve their stated goal, or rules you dont like, WONT make it OK. AND THEY WERE MADE FOR GOOD REASONS.
If you want the rules changed, VOTE for it (OLDRIDER for P.M.)



good luck

[swbarnett]

Just how will you suggest we get people thinking ? TV campaign, adds in the papers, NEW laws, web sites disscussing the issues ?????
Schools would be a good place to start. Stop reducing the pass requirements and accept the fact that failing a class/paper is not the end of the world. The standard of graduates from University is dropping all the time because it's becoming easier and easier to pass in an attempt to raise the pass rate. In practice all that happens is that people put in less effort and the pass rate stays roughly the same.


It matters little if you AGREE with the rules or not. Ignoring rules that dont achieve their stated goal, or rules you dont like, WONT make it OK.
So if you were a black man in the 50's you'd happily stick to your assigned areas simply because it was the law? Civil disobedience is where it starts.


AND THEY WERE MADE FOR GOOD REASONS.
The intentions may have been good but the actuality is far from it. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.


If you want the rules changed, VOTE for it (OLDRIDER for P.M.)
There's no difference between our major parties. Voting is little more than a lottery. Although, at least under MMP we stand a small chance of getting some cooler heads onto the committee. I'm starting to think that, although I don't agree with everything they say, a few Libertarianz would be a good influence.

[FJRider]

Schools would be a good place to start. Stop reducing the pass requirements and accept the fact that failing a class/paper is not the end of the world. The standard of graduates from University is dropping all the time because it's becoming easier and easier to pass in an attempt to raise the pass rate. In practice all that happens is that people put in less effort and the pass rate stays roughly the same.


So if you were a black man in the 50's you'd happily stick to your assigned areas simply because it was the law? Civil disobedience is where it starts.


The intentions may have been good but the actuality is far from it. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.


There's no difference between our major parties. Voting is little more than a lottery. Although, at least under MMP we stand a small chance of getting some cooler heads onto the committee. I'm starting to think that, although I don't agree with everything they say, a few Libertarianz would be a good influence.

You dont need a University Degree to know, speed comes with RISKS and PENALTYS. The bigger Speed, the bigger the risk to yourself AND others. AND the bigger PENALTY if you get caught. Injurys may be part of the penalty.
Road safety is taught in schools. REALITY you learn on the road. People CAN get hurt. Factors you have no control over, play a big part of what happens out on the road. Often factors you could have never even considered. AND THE FIRST WORDS SAID AFTERWARDS ARE... "IT WASN'T MY FAULT".
AND IF THE PASS MARKS ARE SOW LOW, WHY DO SO MANY STILL FAIL ??

Civil disobedience didn't get the speed limits changed. Or any other road rule just because a number (any number) of people disagree with its purpose or result. The rules for public GOOD will take longer to be changed than those for public CONVENIENCE.
On the road, on the track, on the rugby field, rules are there. To REDUCE the risks (for all the players), not remove them. And make it fair for all players, big, small, fast or slow.


The licence restrictions in place, are to encourage safer driving, with time to gain skills and abilitys needed later when a full licence is gained.
THESE BASIC ARE BEING IGNORED, AND PEOPLE DIE !!! No matter how sensible the rules are, no matter how good the reason is, people still ignore them, if it suits them at the time. The paving on the road to hell must be pretty smooth, because its a busy road, and moving bloody quick.

Can you name ONE Politician, that you believe, is,or could be , motorcycle friendly. OR a political party that may be able to make changes on OUR behalf. No rush, but the election IS coming up...
What CHANGES would propose IF YOU COULD, that would get the PM's (any PM) approval.

ANY ANSWERS, FROM ANYBODY ???

[Jantar]

You dont need a University Degree to know, speed comes with RISKS and PENALTYS. The bigger Speed, the bigger the risk to yourself AND others. AND the bigger PENALTY if you get caught. Injurys may be part of the penalty......

This is where you, and many others, are wrong. Higher speeds DO result in greater injuries and more fatalities in the event of accidents. BUT, Almost every country and state that has increased its speed limits has experienced fewer accidents and a decreased road toll.

[scumdog]

This is where you, and many others, are wrong. Higher speeds DO result in greater injuries and more fatalities in the event of accidents. BUT, Almost every country and state that has increased its speed limits has experienced fewer accidents and a decreased road toll.

All I can say is that a shit-load of people in NZ will have to sharpen their driving/riding up for that to be the same on our roads!! :(

[Jantar]

All I can say is that a shit-load of people in NZ will have to sharpen their driving/riding up for that to be the same on our roads!! :(
But it has already happened once. When our speed limits were dropped in 1974 the road toll went up. When it was raised in 1985 the road toll came down.

[scumdog]

But it has already happened once. When our speed limits were dropped in 1974 the road toll went up. When it was raised in 1985 the road toll came down.

Soooo, to be a smart bastard, how high would the speed-limit have to be for the road-toll to be zero??:shutup:

[McJim]

Soooo, to be a smart bastard, how high would the speed-limit have to be for the road-toll to be zero??:shutup:

Too high for my bike :rofl: I'll ned to use my car if they lift the speed that high.

[discotex]

Soooo, to be a smart bastard, how high would the speed-limit have to be for the road-toll to be zero??:shutup:

As the speed limit approaches the speed of light the apparent road-toll will approach zero.

[Patrick]

But it has already happened once. When our speed limits were dropped in 1974 the road toll went up. When it was raised in 1985 the road toll came down.

But that was when drink driving was quite acceptable, with higher limits (500mg per litre of breath) needed to be over as well... Might have had a bit to do with it perhaps?

[Swoop]

Sooooo, in a nutshell you're saying: as the fleet gets safer and less people get killed we should raise the speed limit to keep the road toll where it is at present?????:crazy:
The nation has done quite well this year.
How many fatalities on the roads over easter, I wonder. Can we get a high-score?

[jafar]

But that was when drink driving was quite acceptable, with higher limits (500mg per litre of breath) needed to be over as well... Might have had a bit to do with it perhaps?

Drink driving was better accepted back then, dropping the limit from 500mg to the current limit of 400mg?? did nothing except catch the one or two that had a drink with dinner etc. It was a politically motivated knee jerk reaction to a situation.
The ones that need to be caught are & were the pissheads that don't care how drunk they are or who they hurt in their drunken state:mad:. They are usually well above either the old limit or the new one.

Lower speed limits cause frustration & that is a well known major cause of accidents.


The nation has done quite well this year.
How many fatalities on the roads over easter, I wonder. Can we get a high-score?

I'll go for 7 & hope i'm too high :(

[FJRider]

I think the "gentlemen" at the start of this thread were lucky. If two bikes were travelling at speed, on the same piece of road at the same time, they could have been accused of RACING. Bikes impounded till after the court case. A month walking is tame in comparison. Regardless of any fine imposed.

[swbarnett]

You dont need a University Degree to know, speed comes with RISKS and PENALTYS. ...
You just don't get it and nothing that I say will change that.

You believe in absolute safety and I don't. This is a philosophical differences that no amount of debate will resolve. It's tantamount to a religious debate. The only problem is that your beliefs are reflected in law and mine are not. This is not what I call a free society.

Life without risk is meaningless. Just look at the rise of extreme sports in recent years.

[swbarnett]

AND IF THE PASS MARKS ARE SOW LOW, WHY DO SO MANY STILL FAIL ??
This is an observed fact, not theory.

The most likely mechanism is that students are, like all humans, basically lazy. If you can still pass with less effort that's what will happen. As a result the overall pass rate stays the same.

Would you go on a three day hunt for one meal if you could just reach out and pluck it from the nearest tree?

[FJRider]

You just don't get it and nothing that I say will change that.

You believe in absolute safety and I don't. This is a philosophical differences that no amount of debate will resolve. It's tantamount to a religious debate. The only problem is that your beliefs are reflected in law and mine are not. This is not what I call a free society.

Life without risk is meaningless. Just look at the rise of extreme sports in recent years.

I cannot ride a 1200cc motorcycle, and believe in absolute safety. The law only plays a small part in the safety factor. The variables that do play a part of "safety" are weather conditions, road conditions, and other road users. PLUS our OWN ability. Each of which has many factors which COULD change/influence any or all the others in small ways. (at the wrong time/place)
Motorcycles ARE dangerous.Thats why we ride them. I spent several years in the Army, I do know about risk. Thats why risk MANAGEMENT was concieved. (heard of that ???)
NO extreme sport participant would engage in their sport, if they were thinking it was not possible to survive, or were not aware of ALL the risks involved. NO extreme sport I know of, takes part on public roads, while OPEN to the public, and still remain sanctioned by ANY organisation.
It only takes ONE mistake, and your day turns DEADLY. Whether or not the mistake is made by you, or ANYBODY else, compounded by the factors mentioned (any or all),who's at fault matters little.
One statement is then made... IT WASN'T MY FAULT, (who can I blame ?)

YOU TAKE THE RISK ....and your FREE too. The freedom to do so does/can have its price. CAN YOU AFFORD IT ???

A three day hunt for a dam good feed (and I have done) is better than the freeby, cause there's fuck all left on the tree, with the present number of lazy cu#ts about.

Ride safe. if ya don't...ya can't say ya WEREN'T warned.

HAVE A NICE DAY !!!

[Brett]

All I can say is that you need one mother bitch of a long straight to overtake a truck and trailer doing 100kph on a straight rd. We all know that they slow right down to pathetic speeds come corners and then roar off on the straights. Can't overtake on corners too safely (not that size anyway). But tell me how the hell you safely overtake at 110kph when the truck & trailer is doing 100kph??

Have to agree on the lifting the speed limit thing, 90% of drivers would need significant training to be able to deal with the potential mishaps that can occur, Ie oversteer, understeer, hard-very hard braking, high speed manouvering etc. I have had someone loose control in front of me in the oncoming lane and had to manouver around them and they came spinning around at me. Not fun. OK, well a little, but the outcome could hve been fatal to the driver, his wife and kids as well as myself and my wife.
My personal belief is that all new drivers should have to do a defensive driving course such as is offered by rally driving school as well as Holden and Ford.

[FJRider]

Ahhhh, the joys of motor(cycling)ing. When you weigh 44 tonnes, with 600 or more horses...who gives a toss ???

[FJRider]

All I can say is that you need one mother bitch of a long straight to overtake a truck and trailer doing 100kph on a straight rd. We all know that they slow right down to pathetic speeds come corners and then roar off on the straights. Can't overtake on corners too safely (not that size anyway). But tell me how the hell you safely overtake at 110kph when the truck & trailer is doing 100kph??

Have to agree on the lifting the speed limit thing, 90% of drivers would need significant training to be able to deal with the potential mishaps that can occur, Ie oversteer, understeer, hard-very hard braking, high speed manouvering etc. I have had someone loose control in front of me in the oncoming lane and had to manouver around them and they came spinning around at me. Not fun. OK, well a little, but the outcome could hve been fatal to the driver, his wife and kids as well as myself and my wife.
My personal belief is that all new drivers should have to do a defensive driving course such as is offered by rally driving school as well as Holden and Ford.

And all that training goes out the window when the 3 rug rats (and a few spares) are strapped in the four wheel drive,and are off to see hubby/daddy for lunch.And she's texting him they're on their way, in lunch hour traffic on the motorway.
I actually AGREE with speed limits being raised in SOME areas.NOT in ALL areas for ALL vehicles. More passing areas need put in place FIRST.

[swbarnett]

I cannot ride a 1200cc motorcycle, and believe in absolute safety.
Point taken. Brain out to lunch.

It seems that sometimes people forget this. Some comments in here certainly lead me to believe that there are riders that don't accept that riding a motorcycle comes with it's own set of risks.


The law only plays a small part in the safety factor. The variables that do play a part of "safety" are weather conditions, road conditions, and other road users. PLUS our OWN ability. Each of which has many factors which COULD change/influence any or all the others in small ways. (at the wrong time/place)
Agreed.


Motorcycles ARE dangerous.Thats why we ride them. I spent several years in the Army, I do know about risk. Thats why risk MANAGEMENT was concieved. (heard of that ???)
Yes, I know about risk management. The risks I deal with in the computer industry are more about a company's bottom line than people's lives but the principles are the same (although, cock up on the blood management system and lives are in danger). It's very subjective as to how far you go and what method you use to do the mitigation.


NO extreme sport participant would engage in their sport, if they were thinking it was not possible to survive, or were not aware of ALL the risks involved. NO extreme sport I know of, takes part on public roads, while OPEN to the public, and still remain sanctioned by ANY organisation.
My point here was to illustrate the public reaction to society getting more and more restrictive and "safe". I'm not advocating using the road for my own extreme sport (200kph in an urban area is just plain stupid).


It only takes ONE mistake, and your day turns DEADLY. Whether or not the mistake is made by you, or ANYBODY else, compounded by the factors mentioned (any or all),who's at fault matters little.
Agreed.


One statement is then made... IT WASN'T MY FAULT, (who can I blame ?)
I've never had an accident that wasn't at least partially my own fault (apart from one minor fender bender in the cage) and I've never been injured or injured anyone else as a result of an accident (unless you count a grazed knee).


YOU TAKE THE RISK ....and your FREE too. The freedom to do so does/can have its price. CAN YOU AFFORD IT ???
Not taking the risk also has it's price. This is why 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.


A three day hunt for a dam good feed (and I have done) is better than the freeby, cause there's fuck all left on the tree, with the present number of lazy cu#ts about.
Agreed. But we're the exception in this. 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.


I actually AGREE with speed limits being raised in SOME areas. More passing areas need put in place FIRST. But NOT in ALL areas for ALL vehicles.
Maybe we're not too dissimilar after all. I will admit to being somewhat of an idealist.


Ride safe.
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.


HAVE A NICE DAY !!!
Back at ya...

[Patrick]

Drink driving was better accepted back then, dropping the limit from 500mg to the current limit of 400mg?? did nothing except catch the one or two that had a drink with dinner etc. ....

I'll go for 7 & hope i'm too high :(

A drink or two with dinner???? Blowing over 400????

Takes more than two drinks to blow over 400... unless they were flagons... or kegs...

[scumdog]

A drink or two with dinner???? Blowing over 400????

Takes more than two drinks to blow over 400... unless they were flagons... or kegs...

I agree.

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

Your result may vary.

[Patrick]

I agree.

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

Your result may vary.

Yeah... makes one laugh... "I only had two..."

LIARS.....!!! Lets make it go International...!!!

[jafar]

A drink or two with dinner???? Blowing over 400????

Takes more than two drinks to blow over 400... unless they were flagons... or kegs...


I agree.

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

Your result may vary.

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:

[spudchucka]

I agree.

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

Your result may vary.

7 pints in 1 1/2 hours + empty gut = about 370mg for me.

I have no sympathy for people that blow just over the limit because the limit is extremely generous.