qualified lawyer please, can I beat this ticket?

[zooter]

I'm sure there is meant to be some tolerance to the speed signs as to the proximity to the sign with allowance for acceleration/deceleration. What is it? I got pinged at 87 in a 60 zone maybe 200m before the 80 sign.
Also, do judges have any discretion with speeding tickets? I read of a court case once where a guilty defendant was discharged without conviction because the mandatory minimum punishment had other consequences which made the penalty too harsh to fit the crime. I don't recall what the crime was. In my case I think I can put up a sound argument along similar lines.
Please don't post on this thread unless it's the good legal oil. If you want to sound off start another thread. Cheers, Greg

[James Deuce]

Go and check the LTSA site. Or read the road code.

According to the LTSA speed signs are compulsory, so you must being doing the speed indicated on the sign, at the sign.

Discretion is up to the individual cop. Speed cameras have no discretion.

[Sniper]

Generally, the rule of thumb that the cops follow as well, is that at the start of the sign signals the start of the new speed zone. Unfortunatly if you were pinged doing 87 in a 60 zone 200m away from the sign, there is not a hell of a lot you can do. Fighting it might just result in a bigger loss of money (Court costs) or if you are very very lucky you might get off it, but thats only if you can prove negligence on the cops part. I would recommend you try doing that.

Good luck

[Quasievil]

Well my cop mate tells me you can be pinged 200m outside or inside a speed sign ?? for what its worth

[Sniper]

Well my cop mate tells me you can be pinged 200m outside or inside a speed sign ?? for what its worth

Good point, but once again Quasi, its always at the Cops discretion.

[AMPS]

It was reported that the Police were supposed to exercise discretion within 250 metres of a speed limit change. However 27 k's over wasn't discrete, I think you're toast.
Lou

[Drunken Monkey]

I know of a barrister who has got a few friends/aquaintances off some tickets/charges that you'd have thought were an open and shut case for the Police, including somehow managing to keep a driver's license despite being pinged at 167 in a 100 zone while on 80 demerits.
Barrister's do come at a premium. Expect to pay several hundred, if not thousands of dollars.
I have PM'd his contact details. If anyone else is in the sh!t over traffic offenses, this guy is supposedely 'the man'. I won't post the details, but anyone on this site should feel free to ask me for the details.

[marty]

87 in a 60? what way were you heading? if towards the 80k sign, then you're hash browns.....the other way? you may have some comeback, but i wouldn't be holding my breath. and were you stopped 200m short, or pinged 200m short? if stopped there, you were pinged probably 400m from the sign.

[marty]

and advice is all well and good, but if you want to defend it, it's gonna cost you at least $2000 up front. i know eba lawyers who charge $3000 up front, win or lose, then another $2000 if you win.

[scumdog]

It was reported that the Police were supposed to exercise discretion within 250 metres of a speed limit change. However 27 k's over wasn't discrete, I think you're toast.
Lou
I agree, it sounds like you were winding up in anticipation of the 80 km zone, (either that or you normally ride at that speed in a 60 area!) in which case you ARE toast! :argh:
Cops have the ability to give you a ticket right up to when you go past the sign but generally don't, you were 200 metres from the sign so if I were you I would write it off to experience - and keep a sharper eye out for cops too!!

[Jonty]

Land Transport law is not my speciality, however, I would suggest as a first port of call dropping a line to your local community law center. The CLC are very good at dealing with this type of issue and they will steer you in the right direction. They will be able to advise you on the strength of your case based on the particulars, as it is very difficult in a forum like this to provide specific information without have seen and heard all of the facts.

For what it is worth, however, there no legislative basis that provides for the 200m discretion that some posters have been mentioning. This discretion, on the face of it, would appear to rest with the individual officer concerned. Unfortunatley these offences are what are known as absolute liability offences and are extremely difficult to "defend".

I would imagine the advice from the law center will be to write to the police explaining why you had failed to comply with the compulsory sign and provide some reasonable explaination why this happened.

Also, rememeber the cost of the ticket will undoubtabley be less than the cost of one of us!! so anything you can do for yourself in the mean time (i.e writing letters) will be your best option.


Good luck :cool:

[scroter]

i had a lawyer friend write me a letter for a ticket i received for 13km over in a passing lane. got a letter back and it said NO, and didnt bother giving a reason why even though i gave plenty of reasons why i should have been left alone.
In short dont like your chances of even being listened to.

[Hitcher]

I'm sure there is meant to be some tolerance to the speed signs as to the proximity to the sign with allowance for acceleration/deceleration. What is it? I got pinged at 87 in a 60 zone maybe 200m before the 80 sign.
Also, do judges have any discretion with speeding tickets? I read of a court case once where a guilty defendant was discharged without conviction because the mandatory minimum punishment had other consequences which made the penalty too harsh to fit the crime. I don't recall what the crime was. In my case I think I can put up a sound argument along similar lines.
Please don't post on this thread unless it's the good legal oil. If you want to sound off start another thread. Cheers, Greg
So what's your defence? How fast do you believe you were going or do you have an excuse for being 27kmh over the legal limit? You would have been 7kmh over the limit at the 80kmh mark anyway. Were you accelerating or decelerating at the time? How long before the speed limit mark do you believe "discretion" should apply -- 50m, 100m, 200m, 500m, 1km? Why do you think the sign is where it is? Should it be moved? Pretend I'm a judge and plead your case.

[scumdog]

So what's your defence? How fast do you believe you were going or do you have an excuse for being 27kmh over the legal limit? You would have been 7kmh over the limit at the 80kmh mark anyway. Were you accelerating or decelerating at the time? How long before the speed limit mark do you believe "discretion" should apply -- 50m, 100m, 200m, 500m, 1km? Why do you think the sign is where it is? Should it be moved? Pretend I'm a judge and plead your case.

Hey, you sound far to realistic to be on KB site!! You have pointed out all the flaws in his argument why he should be 'let off'.

Just to add more - How much over the speed limit do you think you should be allowed to go before it's ticket time? and how far from the sign do you think would be reasonable? and do you think you should be able to 'pax' a speeding ticket? :confused2

[spudchucka]

It was reported that the Police were supposed to exercise discretion within 250 metres of a speed limit change. However 27 k's over wasn't discrete, I think you're toast.
Lou
The 250 metre thing is basically a gentlemans agreement that is not policy nor law. Judges / JP's seem to take it into account when folks are entering a slower speed zone but not the other way around.

By the way Zooter, I'd really like to hear how you intend to defend yourself.

[marty]

i've got a defended in court tomorrow for a 19th driving whilst disqualified/eba that involves a strong defence like 'i didn't know i was disqualified, and i didn't think i was pissed'.....

[Coldkiwi]

let me guess... he maimed someone else and the guy will get 200hrs community service???

[jrandom]

Let me guess, zooter... you'll go straight to the nuclear weapon of traffic ticket defenses, and write them a letter saying that you don't WANNA pay a fine, and... and... it SHOULDN'T'VE been a 60 zone, anyway, and... and... it's not FAIR and don't they have any REAL criminals to catch anyway?

No offense (well, not a lot, anyway) meant, but you seem pretty dumb.

Just pay the fine and don't do 27kph over the limit in future unless it isn't actually dangerous, and you're really, really sure no cops are around.

[jrandom]

Please don't post on this thread unless it's the good legal oil. If you want to sound off start another thread.

I should have addressed this in my previous post to forestall any misdirected righteous anger on your part; in this case, pointing out that you're being silly and don't have a hope in hell probably *is* the good legal oil. Sorry dude.

[spudchucka]

i've got a defended in court tomorrow for a 19th driving whilst disqualified/eba that involves a strong defence like 'i didn't know i was disqualified, and i didn't think i was pissed'.....
A colleague snapped a guy recently for his 47th disqaulied driving offence. The judge actually had some balls and for a change and he was RIC'd.

[Hitcher]

he was RIC'd.
Ain't jargon wonderful! RICed = locked up awaiting sentence? (remanded in custody, presumably)

[NordieBoy]

Ain't jargon wonderful! RICed = locked up awaiting sentence? (remanded in custody, presumably)

Nah, Ric is a big Samoan dude with tats and an eyepatch.

:crazy:

[Hitcher]

Nah, Ric is a big Samoan dude with tats and an eyepatch.
In that case, RIC (the adjective) is particularly frightening!

[marty]

he probably 4211'd the car, did a 41, had some 3200, was eba, and after all that, spud had to make up his 9T8, as he had *wasted* so much time doing real police work...

[marty]

Please don't post on this thread unless it's the good legal oil. If you want to sound off start another thread. Cheers, Greg
why start another thread when we can bag you just as good on this one?

[scumdog]

he probably 4211'd the car, did a 41, had some 3200, was eba, and after all that, spud had to make up his 9T8, as he had *wasted* so much time doing real police work...
And no doubt he was checked for any 9T7 and probably the dude was bordering on some 3536 but got off witha K4 but most of us would have K9'd and been 4U for hours!!! :shit:

[spudchucka]

Ain't jargon wonderful! RICed = locked up awaiting sentence? (remanded in custody, presumably)
Opps, sorry bout that. RIC = remanded in custody.

[spudchucka]

And no doubt he was checked for any 9T7 and probably the dude was bordering on some 3536 but got off witha K4 but most of us would have K9'd and been 4U for hours!!! :shit:
Fuck that!!! I went 10/0 ages ago.

[NordieBoy]

Opps, sorry bout that. RIC = remanded in custody.

Boring :sleep:

[spudchucka]

Nah, Ric is a big Samoan dude with tats and an eyepatch.

:crazy:
Ric says to the new inmate, "lets play mummy's and daddy's".

New guy says, "errr, no thanks".

Ric says, "I'll let you be the daddy"!

New guy says, "OK then".

Ric says, "right then, come over here and suck mummy's cock"! :shit:

[riffer]

I'm not a lawyer but I do know that if you exceed the speed limit, for whatever reason, and you are stopped and ticketed, your own moral code should dictate that you take it on the chin, accept it, pay the ticket, and move on.

No-one likes paying speeding tickets, and we all have our excuses, but at the end of the day, you probably knew you were speeding, you sped, and you got caught.

Do the honourable thing. Pay the ticket and move on, buddy.

Anything else sounds like wingeing. And the court's heard it all before.

[spudchucka]

Boring :sleep:
So sorry, I wasn't aware that I was meant to be entertaining you.

Heres a thought, fugg off and find something thats not boring to read! :finger:

[zooter]

It was 5.45am, the reason the 80 zone is there isn't active at 5.45am, I was accelerating into the 80 a bit too fast, granted but I was accelerating away from the 60 zone ( roundabout ). The 60 zone starts before the roundabout to give you time to decelerate for it. They always have the same speed limit in both directions so there could be no argument if you were to do a Uturn in the middle of the disparate zone. Makes sign maintenance easier too.
The reason the cop was on that bit of highway was he had given up on staking out the 30 k's temporay restriction for roadworkers ( also redundant at 5.45am ) a few k's up the road. Probably returning to town for coffee and donuts.
All of which satisfies a few folks curiosity but doesn't answer the question about judges discretion to let me off if I can put forward a good enough argument on the consequences of conviction outweighing gravity of offence, details of which I don't wish to bandy around.
Btw if everyone went to court and self defended their BS speeding tickets the cops would have to give up on dishing them out like candy or the courts would be taking ten years to get to them. I'm not talking about the 120kph on the open road but the ones where you get pinged overtaking a truck or whatever. I've never had a speeding ticket in my life because I basically don't speed.

[spudchucka]

It was 5.45am, the reason the 80 zone is there isn't active at 5.45amLike speedmedic said, there are no time of day restrictions on posted speed limits, you're going to have to do a lot better than that.

I was accelerating into the 80 a bit too fast, granted but I was accelerating away from the 60 zone ( roundabout ).
What difference does it make what speed zone you were accelerating away from? Other than the amount you were exceeding the limit by?

The reason the cop was on that bit of highway was he had given up on staking out the 30 k's temporay restriction for roadworkers ( also redundant at 5.45am ) a few k's up the road.
And you know this because the cop told you, right? Or is that just a great big assumption that makes you feel better about getting nicked? And why is a 30kph temporary restriction invalid at 0545? Because the workmen aren't there at that time? What about the loose gravel on the road, heavy machinery that is often parked at the road side, damage that you are doing to the new road surface at open road speeds? Could they be reasons to impose a 30kph speed restriction at 0545?

Probably returning to town for coffee and donuts.
So you got a ticket from Chief Wiggum, huh?

All of which satisfies a few folks curiosity but doesn't answer the question about judges discretion to let me off if I can put forward a good enough argument on the consequences of conviction outweighing gravity of offence, details of which I don't wish to bandy around.
You are thinking of section 106 - 109 of the sentencing act, which is what pot heads have been trying to use to get off drug convictions, without much luck in most cases. You have been given a ticket for exceeding the speed limit by 27 kph. The penalty is a fine and a few demerit points on your licence. If you defend the ticket, wasting huge amounts of money and time, the judge is just as likely to give you a bigger fine + court costs for wasting every bodys time.

Btw if everyone went to court and self defended their BS speeding tickets the cops would have to give up on dishing them out like candy or the courts would be taking ten years to get to them.
Pot smokers have tried that tactic too, all it does is piss the courts off. By the way, next time you are wondering why it costs so much to go to the doctor or why can't your poor old granny get her hip replacement, think about the amount of govt funds you are wasting by clogging up the courts with this sort of BS.

I basically don't speed.
I guess you were unlucky and got caught on the one and only occasion you ever decided to go faster than the posted speed limit. You must be the unluckiest person in the world!

[James Deuce]

Judges have the discretion to let everybody off everything.

You disobeyed a compulsory speed limit sign and got pinged. I don't understand the rest of your argument at all.

[AMPS]

The 250 metre thing is basically a gentlemans agreement that is not policy nor law. Judges / JP's seem to take it into account when folks are entering a slower speed zone but not the other way around.

By the way Zooter, I'd really like to hear how you intend to defend yourself.

Well, either the Police spokesman lied to the reporter, or the reporter lied to his readers or my alzheimers spiked while I was reading the story. But it was reported as new Police policy along with the banning of covert traffic enforcement.
Lou
PS The 30 km limit could have been there to protect the orange cones lined up in the kerb. There's been one doing that near home for 2 weeks now.

[scumdog]

Well, either the Police spokesman lied to the reporter, or the reporter lied to his readers or my alzheimers spiked while I was reading the story. But it was reported as new Police policy along with the banning of covert traffic enforcement.
Lou
PS The 30 km limit could have been there to protect the orange cones lined up in the kerb. There's been one doing that near home for 2 weeks now.

It had been a 'gentlemans agreement' for yonks and generally adhered to by both parties, however some jumped up plonker shat on the whole deal by trying to defend a speeding ticket on the grounds he was 'only' 247 metres from the 70km area (still in the 50km zone) when he got pinged for 70+.WTF??? :confused:
He allegedly went and 'measured' the above distance - how you know 'exactly' where you are when you get pinged by the radar I'm danged if I know. :confused2 :crazy:

Big boss got ticked off by this,said "remember, this 250metre thing is not law it's only a guidline, if you want to ping somebody inside that distance it's their bad luck" - or something to that effect.

[750Y]

Ric says to the new inmate, "lets play mummy's and daddy's".

New guy says, "errr, no thanks".

Ric says, "I'll let you be the daddy"!

New guy says, "OK then".

Ric says, "right then, come over here and suck mummy's cock"! :shit:

lmfao,
that joke was really bad spud, but i am still laughing...

[jimbo600]

I'm sure there is meant to be some tolerance to the speed signs as to the proximity to the sign with allowance for acceleration/deceleration. What is it? I got pinged at 87 in a 60 zone maybe 200m before the 80 sign.
Also, do judges have any discretion with speeding tickets? I read of a court case once where a guilty defendant was discharged without conviction because the mandatory minimum punishment had other consequences which made the penalty too harsh to fit the crime. I don't recall what the crime was. In my case I think I can put up a sound argument along similar lines.
Please don't post on this thread unless it's the good legal oil. If you want to sound off start another thread. Cheers, Greg

The speed enforcement policy states that people should not be targeted within 250m of a speed change. This is written into their policy. However what is not written is that it only occurs when going from high to low speed. I imagine a defence lawer would get you off though. It doesn't count if there are roadworks or a school in the vicinity.

[scumdog]

The speed enforcement policy states that people should not be targeted within 250m of a speed change. This is written into their policy. However what is not written is that it only occurs when going from high to low speed. I imagine a defence lawer would get you off though. It doesn't count if there are roadworks or a school in the vicinity.

Policy is one thing, law another.

And zooter, did you 'measure' this 200m distance from the sign? or is it a guess?

You never know, could have been 125m. :rolleyes:

[spudchucka]

lmfao,
that joke was really bad spud, but i am still laughing...
The joys of prison life.....its no joke ;)

[spudchucka]

Well, either the Police spokesman lied to the reporter, or the reporter lied to his readers or my alzheimers spiked while I was reading the story. But it was reported as new Police policy along with the banning of covert traffic enforcement.
Lou
PS The 30 km limit could have been there to protect the orange cones lined up in the kerb. There's been one doing that near home for 2 weeks now.
Its a guidline, or perhaps could be considered best practice. It isn't a blanket permission slip that allows anyone that feels like it to take off at warp factor five before they reach the new speed zone.

Those cones are expensive and deserve the full protection of the law! ;)

[marty]

Btw if everyone went to court and self defended their BS speeding tickets the cops would have to give up on dishing them out like candy or the courts would be taking ten years to get to them. .
how does the cops dishing out tickets have anything to do with the waiting time at court? they are 2 completly separate systems. the court cannot dictate to the police how many tickets/arrests/prosecutions it (the police) initiates. if the court cannot cope, then the justice dept needs to address it, not the police dept.

[marty]

someone with more knowledge of police policy than i needs to post this 'policy' on here. to the best of my knowledge it's not in GI's, and if jimbo is right, and it says 'should' not be targetted within 250m, then 'should' is not 'will not be'

[spudchucka]

someone with more knowledge of police policy than i needs to post this 'policy' on here. to the best of my knowledge it's not in GI's, and if jimbo is right, and it says 'should' not be targetted within 250m, then 'should' is not 'will not be'
If I get a chance tonight I'll find it and post a summary tomorrow.

[vifferman]

When I was learning to drive, many years ago (around the start of the Cretaceous Period, if I remember correctly) I was taught that the speed limits applied from where the signs were, so if I was going from a 70 km/h zone to a 50, then I needed to make sure I was doing 50 by the time I passed the sign. And conversely, if I was going from a 50 to a 70, then I shouldn't start accelerating till I got to the 70 sign. So that's what I did.

Has this changed somewhere along the line? I guess it must have, because from the behaviour of other motorists, it appears that ALL signs (including stop signs, traffic lights, etc.) are a vague suggestion only, and that you need obey them only if you feel like it. And then only vaguely. Or not.

[scumdog]

When I was learning to drive, many years ago (around the start of the Cretaceous Period, if I remember correctly) I was taught that the speed limits applied from where the signs were, so if I was going from a 70 km/h zone to a 50, then I needed to make sure I was doing 50 by the time I passed the sign. And conversely, if I was going from a 50 to a 70, then I shouldn't start accelerating till I got to the 70 sign. So that's what I did.

Has this changed somewhere along the line? I guess it must have, because from the behaviour of other motorists, it appears that ALL signs (including stop signs, traffic lights, etc.) are a vague suggestion only, and that you need obey them only if you feel like it. And then only vaguely. Or not.

Summed up nicely, unfortunately to alleviate fall-out from disgruntled public the aforementioned 'gentlemans agreement' was instituted.

Imagine a lot of other legal items with that 'slack' i.e. "your lucky day sir, you blew 440, while the law says the limit is 400 we have a gentlemans agreement that you don't get prosecuted for less the 450...."
or "lucky break dude, you were only 200 metres inside the liquor-ban area with that bottle of bourbon and we don't arrest you if you're less than 250 metres inside the ban area..." "the red light had only been showing for 5 seconds when you went through the intersection and we only give tickets if it has been showing for more than 10 seconds. :angry2:

[XP@]

I have successfully used the excuse:

"I was not looking at my speedo because I was scanning the road whilst accellerating upto cruising speed. In this case an anticipated 80-83kmph as per the sign I was approaching. Taking in to account the road, and environmental conditions I estimated my speed to be reasonable and safe"
"The characteristics of a motorcycle include a narrower power band than a car. During accelleration up through the gears it is important to change gear at the correct time in relation to the revs. Depending on the gear ratio's of the motor cycle it is sometimes easier to accellerate slightly over the desired speed and then reducing speed to the required level. If the accelleration is not smooth then the motorcycle becomes less stable and therefore introducing unnecessary and unreasonable risks."

"In this case my speed was reasonable in relation to the proximity of the sign.
Looking at my speedo during the period of accelleration would have introduced more risks than I was prepared to accept."

If the cop was very hidden then you could also emphasise your scanning of the road a little more. but you have to be careful that they don't see your missing of the cop as lack of observation.
If you saw the cop and decided that for some (good) reason the risks involved in slowing were greater than the risks involved in speeding then you can argue that to good effect. (used that one twice)
if the judge can see you were "reasonable" in your actions then you stand a chance.
If you can prove the laws of physics ment that you had to speed then you should be ok. eg going round a corner and hit by a blast of wind so you opened the throttle to obtain the power to right yourself.

Which ever the case it is worth a good letter, I have had 4 speeding and 2 parking tickets waived from letters :) On the other hand 2 have failed...

[scumdog]

Jeez XP, no wonder you got off! If I had been the judge I would have let you off too - only in fear thet you might repeat that lengthy explanation again and bore me even more shitless!!

It was still a lot of clap-trap though, I mean just look at that burbble about the 'narrow power band.... etc' WTF and 'anticipating' the speed increase stuff !!! gimme strength, the judge must have been drunk to swallow that one.

..'speed reasonable and safe'? they didn't swallow that one when I got done for 156kmh, they must have found your judgement more accurate than mine!

BTW my success/failure rate for writing in to get off a ticket is about the same as yours - but that was about 20+ years ago. ;)

[Stinger]

I like it XP :yeah:

Add to that argument the whole "even power" concept where deceleration would have caused increased oversteer again very dangerous.

[XP@]

..'speed reasonable and safe'? they didn't swallow that one when I got done for 156kmh, they must have found your judgement more accurate than mine!
Reasonable is generally something close to the limit or close to the nearby limits...

When they tried to do me for 111kmph (in a 50 zone) I needed a little bit more than a nice letter. I used Des Deacon from wellington (look him up in the phone book) he found that their speed gun calibration was not up to date... it still didn't go to court, but cost me $500 in legal fees, worth it!

[Dr Bob]

The codified law is all written by non-lawyers (okay maybe a few) ie. MP's The judges need to ascertain whether you have breached the 'intent' of the law. Situational factors are important, because if you were clearly not going to harm yourself, others, the road surface (unduly) etc. then you have not breached the intent of the law. If at 5:45am there is no other traffic on that stretch of roadway, then it is an important issue along with the circumstances you described about the roading context.

If interpretation of intent wasn't important then half the laws wouldn't include the statements such as 'with due care and consideration to other road users' or 'if able to be done safely'.

[XP@]

The codified law is all written by non-lawyers (okay maybe a few) ie. MP's The judges need to ascertain whether you have breached the 'intent' of the law. Situational factors are important, because if you were clearly not going to harm yourself, others, the road surface (unduly) etc. then you have not breached the intent of the law. If at 5:45am there is no other traffic on that stretch of roadway, then it is an important issue along with the circumstances you described about the roading context.

If interpretation of intent wasn't important then half the laws wouldn't include the statements such as 'with due care and consideration to other road users' or 'if able to be done safely'.

Go Doc!
I hadn't thought about that angle before...

[Ramius]

It was 5.45am, the reason the 80 zone is there isn't active at 5.45am, I was accelerating into the 80 a bit too fast, granted but I was accelerating away from the 60 zone ( roundabout ). The 60 zone starts before the roundabout to give you time to decelerate for it. They always have the same speed limit in both directions so there could be no argument if you were to do a Uturn in the middle of the disparate zone. Makes sign maintenance easier too.
The reason the cop was on that bit of highway was he had given up on staking out the 30 k's temporay restriction for roadworkers ( also redundant at 5.45am ) a few k's up the road. Probably returning to town for coffee and donuts.
All of which satisfies a few folks curiosity but doesn't answer the question about judges discretion to let me off if I can put forward a good enough argument on the consequences of conviction outweighing gravity of offence, details of which I don't wish to bandy around.
Btw if everyone went to court and self defended their BS speeding tickets the cops would have to give up on dishing them out like candy or the courts would be taking ten years to get to them. I'm not talking about the 120kph on the open road but the ones where you get pinged overtaking a truck or whatever. I've never had a speeding ticket in my life because I basically don't speed.

Speaking from a collection officers view: Tickets that have hearing requested where the defendant pleads not guilty generally go in front of a JP and not a judge, where the JP generally hands out the maximum penalty.

Face it my friend, you were in a 60 zone doing 87, whether you were 200m out or not. You were still over the speed limit and there is no time restriction on speed zones, if there is a 50, you do no more than 50. (Exc LS Zones)

A lot of people complain to me that all the government are doing is revenue gathering, and I always come back with this, 'there is a speed limit, you were x km over that limit, if no one sped in this country, no tickets would be handed out and then there would be no cash collected'

[marty]

Situational factors are important, because if you were clearly not going to harm yourself, others, the road surface (unduly) etc. then you have not breached the intent of the law. If at 5:45am there is no other traffic on that stretch of roadway, then it is an important issue along with the circumstances you described about the roading context.

If interpretation of intent wasn't important then half the laws wouldn't include the statements such as 'with due care and consideration to other road users' or 'if able to be done safely'.

what a load of crap. nowhere in the exceeding speed limit regs does it talk about 'with due care and consideration to other road users'.

[spudchucka]

what a load of crap. nowhere in the exceeding speed limit regs does it talk about 'with due care and consideration to other road users'.
Its the "bush lawyer" syndrome, everyones a feckin expert.

[spudchucka]

If I get a chance tonight I'll find it and post a summary tomorrow.
The current "speed enforcement guide" states that vehicles shouldn't be targeted within 250 metres of a speed limit change, except in exceptional circumstances.

[Dr Bob]

what a load of crap. nowhere in the exceeding speed limit regs does it talk about 'with due care and consideration to other road users'.

Thank you Marty for your most eloquent contribution. I would add that I only said that half the laws actually included such phrases, and of course with common law it is prima facie interpretive. As law is a social objectivication I would contend that the issue is best dealt with by discussing the philosophy of objectivity and empiricism, rather than defecation.

[Dr Bob]

Its the "bush lawyer" syndrome, everyones a feckin expert.

On the contrary, no one is. Therefore we can also listen to your opinion. In a court of law that is all you have.

[spudchucka]

On the contrary, no one is. Therefore we can also listen to your opinion. In a court of law that is all you have.
Courts don't allow opinion evidence, isn't that common knowledge that any half decent bush lawyer would be aware of?

[scumdog]

Thank you Marty for your most eloquent contribution. I would add that I only said that half the laws actually included such phrases, and of course with common law it is prima facie interpretive. As law is a social objectivication I would contend that the issue is best dealt with by discussing the philosophy of objectivity and empiricism, rather than defecation.

Oooh marty!! :Pokey: :bleh:

[Dr Bob]

Courts don't allow opinion evidence, isn't that common knowledge that any half decent bush lawyer would be aware of?

I guess the previous post re : philosophy went over your head then

[Yamahamaman]

Courts don't allow opinion evidence, isn't that common knowledge that any half decent bush lawyer would be aware of?
I thought that was the type of evidence that 'expert witnesses' provided all the time.

[inlinefour]

When I was learning to drive, many years ago (around the start of the Cretaceous Period, if I remember correctly) I was taught that the speed limits applied from where the signs were, so if I was going from a 70 km/h zone to a 50, then I needed to make sure I was doing 50 by the time I passed the sign. And conversely, if I was going from a 50 to a 70, then I shouldn't start accelerating till I got to the 70 sign. So that's what I did.

Has this changed somewhere along the line? I guess it must have, because from the behaviour of other motorists, it appears that ALL signs (including stop signs, traffic lights, etc.) are a vague suggestion only, and that you need obey them only if you feel like it. And then only vaguely. Or not.

This is quite correct. Its that simple. Dont quite know if the thread starter thought he'd rack up simpathy or be able to get off the ticket, but. Mate you broke the law, how about owning up to it? I did not read this whole thread thru, but to the above. If you've got morals, pay the ticket and learn. If not :finger: its the same for us all on the road, why should it be any different for you or anyone else for that matter?

[marty]

expert witnesses give evidence based on the facts as they are aware of them. they are called expert witnesses as their knowledge is recognised and appropriate weight is given to it. their 'opinion' is based on their qualification, and has to be supported by something within the evidence presented.

[marty]

Thank you Marty for your most eloquent contribution. I would add that I only said that half the laws actually included such phrases, and of course with common law it is prima facie interpretive. As law is a social objectivication I would contend that the issue is best dealt with by discussing the philosophy of objectivity and empiricism, rather than defecation.
hmm - didn't see that 'half' word before.

and i thought i had used crap so eloquently too.

[Yamahamaman]

their 'opinion' is based on their qualification, and has to be supported by something within the evidence presented.
Opinion is opinion according to the dictionary.

It also must be noted that opinions may differ between expert witnesses depending on their analysis of the facts.

But then again, law doesn't really rely on facts does it. In the words of John Quincy Adams, US President - "Whoever tells the best story wins"

[Stinger]

If you want two differing opinions you need only ask two different experts. This is almost invariably the case.

[Yamahamaman]

If you want two differing opinions you need only ask two different experts. This is almost invariably the case.
Isn't that what I said?

[Bonez]

I'm sure there is meant to be some tolerance to the speed signs as to the proximity to the sign with allowance for acceleration/deceleration. What is it? I got pinged at 87 in a 60 zone maybe 200m before the 80 sign.
Also, do judges have any discretion with speeding tickets? I read of a court case once where a guilty defendant was discharged without conviction because the mandatory minimum punishment had other consequences which made the penalty too harsh to fit the crime. I don't recall what the crime was. In my case I think I can put up a sound argument along similar lines.
Please don't post on this thread unless it's the good legal oil. If you want to sound off start another thread. Cheers, Greg You got caught. So pay up! Just like the rest of us. :whistle:

[Stinger]

Isn't that what I said?

Most people think that experts generally agree, I was just pointing out that generally (always) they don't.

[spudchucka]

I thought that was the type of evidence that 'expert witnesses' provided all the time.
That would be "expert opinion evidence", which is very different to "dumb-fuck opinion evidence".

[spudchucka]

I guess the previous post re : philosophy went over your head then
No. I just don't give a shit about philosophy.

[Lou Girardin]

No. I just don't give a shit about philosophy.

When I hear someone talking of philosophy, I reach for my revolver. (To paraphrase Hermann Goering).

[spudchucka]

When I hear someone talking of philosophy, I reach for my revolver. (To paraphrase Hermann Goering).
Lou, for once I like what you say!

[jrandom]

Lou, for once I like what you say!

Lou and Spud. Our local chapter of Curmudgeons United Against Philosophy!

[James Deuce]

It's interesting that the Lou and Spud choose to use "Fatty" Herman to support their argument. :Pokey:

[jrandom]

It's interesting that the Lou and Spud choose to use "Fatty" Herman to support their argument. :Pokey:

I have Herr Meets Hare, starring Bugs Bunny, Adolf H. and 'Fatso' Goering in an old-Bugs-cartoons collection on DVD. Do you want a ripped MPEG sometime? It's great.

Particularly note the way Bugs's appearance on a bloated white charger to the motif of the Tannhauser Overture prefigures his much later turn as Brunnhilde in What's Opera, Doc.

I love that Warner Bros. wartime propaganda.

[James Deuce]

I have Herr Meets Hare, starring Bugs Bunny, Adolf H. and 'Fatso' Goering in an old-Bugs-cartoons collection on DVD. Do you want a ripped MPEG sometime? It's great.

Particularly note the way Bugs's appearance on a bloated white charger to the motif of the Tannhauser Overture prefigures his much later turn as Brunnhilde in What's Opera, Doc.

I love that Warner Bros. wartime propaganda.

The WB stuff seemed to get away with poking at both sides, where Disney had a few cartoons banned during WWII. The last banned Disney cartoon has just been removed from the banned list, but there are no plans to publish it. Donald Duck plays Hitler, and Hitler is cast in a favourable light (in keeping with WD's politics of the time).

I got a Superman DVD from Foodtown for 5 bucks that was wartime propaganda, and it is very interesting how Superman's physical appearance and general ethos changes in the course of 4 or 5 story lines.

I still don't see how the dude who started this thread can rationalise being 27 km/hr over the limit as warranting a court challenge.

[spudchucka]

It's interesting that the Lou and Spud choose to use "Fatty" Herman to support their argument. :Pokey:
I don't recall quoting Herman at all. I think I said that I don't give a shit about philosophy, not that I was into shooting philosophers.

[James Deuce]

I don't recall quoting Herman at all. I think I said that I don't give a shit about philosophy, not that I was into shooting philosophers.
Quoted by proxy old bean - you agreed with Lou. ;)