Speeding ticket. Do I have grounds to contest this??

[mattian]

G'day folks. Newbie rider here on my restricted licence. I was out on a ride yesterday(Monday) on the Shore. I should point out at this point that my speedo isnt working at the moment due to an unfortunate accident with my disc lock. Waiting for a replacement cable and my method for riding without a speedo is to keep a safe following distance while keeping up with the flow of traffic.
I was coming around a very gently curving corner while keeping pace with the car in front of me. Coming in the opposite direction was an unmarked police car. I saw him pull over in my mirrors and I thought (he is going to pull me over..... I just know it) Sure enough, about 100 metres down the road I got the flashing blue and reds. pulled over and as soon as he got out of the car had already started writing me a ticket !! I asked him, how fast did he think I was going because my speedo isnt working and he said that I took the corner at around 65kph. I checked my ticket and it says (Allleged speed) 65.
Do I have grounds to have this ticket dismissed? he didnt have a fixed reading with a radar gun, nor was he pacing me from behind.:crybaby:
I would appreciate any feedback!!

"Look out for grey cars on a grey day with no headlights on"

[kiwifruit]

What was the posted speed limit?
Speedo not working is no excuse (correct me if i'm wrong), i think you need a working speedo to be up to W.O.F standard(?)

[Mully]

What was the posted speed limit?
Speedo not working is no excuse (correct me if i'm wrong), i think you need a working speedo to be up to W.O.F standard(?)

Yep. He probably could have done you for driving a vehicle not up to WOF standard.

Unless you can prove you were on your way to have the speedo fixed, I think you are out of luck.

[mattian]

The speed limit is 50. The bike was warranted before the speedo cable broke. Yeah, I knew that wasn't an excuse when I mentioned it to the officer....... frankly, I don't even think he believed me.

[bobsmith]

Yeah what was the speedlimit? I think doing 65 in 50km/hr area is $80 fine and 20 demerit points.. Which is better than $200 fine and 0 demerit points for not being up to WOF standard depending whether you're worried more about fine or the demerit points. Of course if you told him you were doing 50km/hr and they didn't have clear speed reading on your speed it would have been $0 fine and 0 demerit points. I'm gussing it would be hard getting off this one since you told him you thought you were doing about 65 and your speedo wasn't working.

[PrincessBandit]

Mmmm, sorry but I think kiwifruit is right. I've snapped 2 speedo cables on my GN in the past (not from run ins with my disc lock either). On the occassions I had to ride with no working speedo I followed the readings from my rev counter as a guide to my speed rather than the flow of the traffic. I have often wondered what the conflict would be between a posted speed limit and the excuse of "but I was travelling with the flow of the traffic". Technically there shouldn't be any because if your speed matching the status quo is above the speed limit you're still "speeding" - it just comes down to who gets pulled over I guess, and it was obviously not your lucky day.

[kiwifruit]

The point of trying to "get off" a ticket is usually due to feeling the ticket isn't justified (you weren't doing the alleged speed or whatever) ... you admit to the "offence" so it seems you are looking to get off without good reason. IMHO of course. :)

[Mully]

I've snapped 2 speedo cables on my GN in the past

Yeah, GNs will do that. I think it's the horsepower or something.

[mattian]

Yeah what was the speedlimit? I think doing 65 in 50km/hr area is $80 fine and 20 demerit points.. Which is better than $200 fine and 0 demerit points for not being up to WOF standard depending whether you're worried more about fine or the demerit points. Of course if you told him you were doing 50km/hr and they didn't have clear speed reading on your speed it would have been $0 fine and 0 demerit points. I'm gussing it would be hard getting off this one since you told him you thought you were doing about 65 and your speedo wasn't working.

Oh, I never told him I was doing 65. I asked him "what speed did he think I was going?" as my speedo isnt working. My main issue is, he was travelling in the opposite direction and passing me on a corner so, we only saw each other very briefly. It seems to me like he was only "guessing" my speed around that corner.

[vifferman]

I think you missed your opportunity to get off this. When you were pulled up, you needed to effectively appeal to the oroficer on the basis of your speedo being broken so you were relying on the car in front going at the right speed, and just keeping pace with him/her. If he didn't buy it, you have to just suck it up.

[mattian]

I think you missed your opportunity to get off this. When you were pulled up, you needed to effectively appeal to the oroficer on the basis of your speedo being broken so you were relying on the car in front going at the right speed, and just keeping pace with him/her. If he didn't buy it, you have to just suck it up.

Yep, you're right. I do need to suck it up..... I will pay it now after reading all of your posts so far. Thanks alot peoples. It just seems to me that, they really dont have to have any "evidence" of your speed to write you a ticket. He didnt have a radar gun and he wasn't pacing me either..... he just passed me in the opposite direction on a corner. It just seems like his grounds to write me a ticket is a little debateable. Anyways, I'll pay it.:crybaby:

[Nasty]

Oh, I never told him I was doing 65. I asked him "what speed did he think I was going?" as my speedo isnt working. My main issue is, he was travelling in the opposite direction and passing me on a corner so, we only saw each other very briefly. It seems to me like he was only "guessing" my speed around that corner.

Did you ask to see his machine (not being rude here). They generally don't guess - being that no evidence means they can't really charge you. It is your responsbility to ensure that your vehicle remains in a warrentable state and you don't use it if you don't. Seems harsh that you are responsible but life sucks like that.

[pritch]

I think your basic error was mentioning that the speedo didn't work.
You now can't argue with whatever the cop decided your speed was.

In the circumstances a flat out denial may have served you better, not that I would ever suggest people tell lies. :whistle:

Sometimes the officers like to play little games, they will ask what speed you thought you were doing, any answer except the speed limit or below is the wrong answer.

This isn't theory, I have experienced this, so have friends.

A recent variation I encountered was, "I thought you were doing 120 here what would you say to that?"

The right answer was along the lines, "Nooooo, never!"
If I'd said, "I don't know, my speedo isn't working."
That'd likely have cost me more than just a new speedo...

[yod]

Yep, you're right. I do need to suck it up..... I will pay it now after reading all of your posts so far. Thanks alot peoples. It just seems to me that, they really dont have to have any "evidence" of your speed to write you a ticket. He didnt have a radar gun and he wasn't pacing me either..... he just passed me in the opposite direction on a corner. It just seems like his grounds to write me a ticket is a little debateable. Anyways, I'll pay it.:crybaby:

no, you're right

they don't need evidence of anything really - if they feel like busting you for something then they can - their word is basically good enough

pain in the ass i know

[McDuck]

Umm i rode without a speedo cable for well over a month and did not get a ticket. Why didnt you just go by the rev counter?

[mattian]

Umm i rode without a speedo cable for well over a month and did not get a ticket. Why didnt you just go by the rev counter?

My bike doesn't have a rev counter...... :baby:

[Swoop]

If you were riding with your fingers crossed, you are sweet! They cannot get ya when you have your fingers crossed.

[Sanx]

They generally don't guess - being that no evidence means they can't really charge you.

But a Police Officer's wild arse guess / complete fabrication is classed as expert evidence in court, and therefore can be relied upon without the slightest but of real evidence to back it up. At least in traffic cases; I believe in criminal ones Police officers have to do slightly more to get a conviction than turn up in court and say "It was 'im, ya 'onour, I saw 'im".

[shafty]

I think you have a case Mattian - the Officer didn't "clock" you - ie follow at the same speed to check your speed, he didn't use a radar (as I understand it), he had no laser, nor was a camera involved. Sounds like you've got a rough deal.

I don't believe your mention of no speedo will count against you AT THIS STAGE - he would've had to have ticketed you for that at the time. It's a bit like being asked at a Drink Drive check point "Have you been drinking" . If you say "No" and the test proves you have, - you don't get charged with lying!

It depends if you can be bothered, but you could contest the case in court. If you indicate your wish to - ithe case may never make it there - ie the Officer may decide his time is better spent elsewhere.

If you took it to court, the question I would ask is "How can the prosecution prove what speed I was doing?"

The Judge MAY not agree with you, but surely estimating someones speed from head on within 10 or 15 km's of the limit is pushing the boundaries of reasonable doubt?

I think the Officer was pretty unreasonable, tho he may have been targeting a group of motorists presently being "focussed on".

A Mate riding perfectly legally with his wife on his immac ST1100 had a Cop Car swerve across the road (coming towards him) to pull him over. Pretty dumb manoevre if you ask me. When questioned about it, the Officer said they were targetting m/cycles and "You are the first one I've seen all day"

[mattian]

I think you have a case Mattian - the Officer didn't "clock" you - ie follow at the same speed to check your speed, he didn't use a radar (as I understand it), he had no laser, nor was a camera involved. Sounds like you've got a rough deal.

I don't believe your mention of no speedo will count against you AT THIS STAGE - he would've had to have ticketed you for that at the time. It's a bit like being asked at a Drink Drive check point "Have you been drinking" . If you say "No" and the test proves you have, - you don't get charged with lying!

It depends if you can be bothered, but you could contest the case in court. If you indicate your wish to - ithe case may never make it there - ie the Officer may decide his time is better spent elsewhere.

If you took it to court, the question I would ask is "How can the prosecution prove what speed I was doing?"

The Judge MAY not agree with you, but surely estimating someones speed from head on within 10 or 15 km's of the limit is pushing the boundaries of reasonable doubt?

I think the Officer was pretty unreasonable, tho he may have been targeting a group of motorists presently being "focussed on".

A Mate riding perfectly legally with his wife on his immac ST1100 had a Cop Car swerve across the road (coming towards him) to pull him over. Pretty dumb manoevre if you ask me. When questioned about it, the Officer said they were targetting m/cycles and "You are the first one I've seen all day"

Holy heck.... did your mate take that incident any further?? It amazes me the way police can make all kinds of illegal manouvres to catch up to someone they "suspect" of exceeding the speed limit even by a little bit. In my case, he had to make a U-turn and then accelerate well past 60 or 65 just to catch up with me. To be honest with you.... when I saw him pull over initially, I thought about putting the power on and taking the nearest side street. I probably would have got away..... but, then thought better of it. I don't want to be one of those riders....... I want to live to enjoy my biking:lol:

[MaxB]

Holy heck.... did your mate take that incident any further?? It amazes me the way police can make all kinds of illegal manouvres to catch up to someone they "suspect" of exceeding the speed limit even by a little bit. In my case, he had to make a U-turn and then accelerate well past 60 or 65 just to catch up with me. To be honest with you.... when I saw him pull over initially, I thought about putting the power on and taking the nearest side street. I probably would have got away..... but, then thought better of it. I don't want to be one of those riders....... I want to live to enjoy my biking:lol:

This is how they get away with it. Issue a low level ticket to 'teach you a lesson' that is below the $130 court costs for you to fight it. I guess you might as well pay up and move on.

A lot of countries now require 'documentary evidence' (printout, photo second cop, witness) along with the police opinion to secure a successful ticket. Maybe one day we will get it here?

[Skyryder]

It is impossible to to estiamte accurately oncoming speed. There is a thread in here somewhere on this very topic. You have two choices. Go for the cheapo and pay up. Or defend the charge. As the law now stands the police can give evidence on their estimated speed of the offender. The question you need to ask the officer in 'cross' is what are the paremetres that you (he) used to estimate ('my') your speed. No doubt he will come up with experiance etc but you are not asking how long he has been a cop etc but what the parameters he used to estiamte a speed of 65Kph.

Skyryder

[mattian]

It is impossible to to estiamte accurately oncoming speed. There is a thread in here somewhere on this very topic. You have two choices. Go for the cheapo and pay up. Or defend the charge. As the law now stands the police can give evidence on their estimated speed of the offender. The question you need to ask the officer in 'cross' is what are the paremetres that you (he) used to estimate ('my') your speed. No doubt he will come up with experiance etc but you are not asking how long he has been a cop etc but what the parameters he used to estiamte a speed of 65Kph.

Skyryder

Cheers bro.... I have decided to pay the fine. I know that if I decided to make a stand and take it as far as court I probably would have had the ticket dismissed however, as it was pointed out to me earlier on in the piece..... by rights, he could have done me for not riding a vehicle up to wof standard because my speedo wasnt working.... but, he didn't. That would have been a $200 fine so,... I kinda feel like he did cut me some slack. This is my first ever ticket and an experience I dont want to repeat. :spanking:

[peasea]

Cheers bro.... I have decided to pay the fine. I know that if I decided to make a stand and take it as far as court I probably would have had the ticket dismissed however, as it was pointed out to me earlier on in the piece..... by rights, he could have done me for not riding a vehicle up to wof standard because my speedo wasnt working.... but, he didn't. That would have been a $200 fine so,... I kinda feel like he did cut me some slack. This is my first ever ticket and an experience I dont want to repeat. :spanking:

If you don't want another ticket; sell your bike.

He didn't cut you any slack, he just didn't think of booking you for the WOF thing. (Young buck, was he? Spotty-faced?) Sure, you're not supposed to be out on a bike with no speedo (unless it's a 1903 Velocipede, which don't have speedo's from the factory) but my guess is, assuming you were in a line of traffic and travelling at the same pace as that traffic, he fingered you coz you were on a bike. My experience with North Shore cops points to that being the most likely scenario. You're easy meat pal.

Plead not guilty to every ticket, sometimes they can't be arsed and you save a few dollars; it doesn't happen very often but it does happen. At worst you get the satisfaction of having your say in court, it gives the cop more paperwork and it gets the twat off the road for a couple of hours so the rest of us can cruise past the courthouse at 65kph.


If we live in the area that is.

[mattian]

Sell my bike :shit:............................Never !! I would take it to bed with me every night if I could :love:
As for the speedo...... just waiting for the new cable to arrive and it will be fixed soon enough. You're right, I do believe he targeted me becuse I was on a bike....... I was following the car in front of me at a safe distance at the same speed but, because I am on a bike, it just "looks" as if I am coming around the corner a little quicker. He obviously had his quota to fill that day and saw me as easy pickings......:bye:

[sinfull]

I notice no one has bothered (apart from Nasy mentioning his machine ) to ask Mattian if he realises most unmarked cops have whats called a hawk radar !
Doubt very much he just estimated you at 65 !
You are within your rights to ask to see the hawk to check what speed he clocked you at !
You are also within your rights to ask for proof of callibration of said hawk and i believe the callibration of said callibrator also, if ya wanna push it !
there is a small chance these are not up to date and the cost would out way the fine you have, so make it simpler to wave your ticket !
Never tried it myself but have heard of it happening !
Personally i'm thinking fair cop, you really have no idea what speed you were doing so do the time !

[scumdog]

Sell my bike :shit:............................Never !! I would take it to bed with me every night if I could :love:
As for the speedo...... just waiting for the new cable to arrive and it will be fixed soon enough. You're right, I do believe he targeted me becuse I was on a bike....... I was following the car in front of me at a safe distance at the same speed but, because I am on a bike, it just "looks" as if I am coming around the corner a little quicker. He obviously had his quota to fill that day and saw me as easy pickings......:bye:


Check your PMs, advice to be read...

[marty]

I notice no one has bothered (apart from Nasy mentioning his machine ) to ask Mattian if he realises most unmarked cops have whats called a hawk radar !
Doubt very much he just estimated you at 65 !
You are within your rights to ask to see the hawk to check what speed he clocked you at !
You are also within your rights to ask for proof of callibration of said hawk and i believe the callibration of said callibrator also, if ya wanna push it !
there is a small chance these are not up to date and the cost would out way the fine you have, so make it simpler to wave your ticket !
Never tried it myself but have heard of it happening !
Personally i'm thinking fair cop, you really have no idea what speed you were doing so do the time !

HAWK radar units were thrown out in the late 90's.

STALKER units are now mostly in use, they have front and rear radar, and 'following speed' ability.

At the very least, you should request disclosure (I'm picking SD has covered that in his PM anyway..)

[Ixion]

If you don't want another ticket; sell your bike.

He didn't cut you any slack, he just didn't think of booking you for the WOF thing. (Young buck, was he? Spotty-faced?) Sure, you're not supposed to be out on a bike with no speedo (unless it's a 1903 Velocipede, which don't have speedo's from the factory) but my guess is, assuming you were in a line of traffic and travelling at the same pace as that traffic, he fingered you coz you were on a bike. ...

1950 is the date before which no speedo is required. But there is a little known out, though I doubt it would serve your need

from the Vehicle Equipment Rule 2004


Mandatory equipment
1.A motorcycle fi rst registered in New Zealand on or
after 1/12/1951 that is capable of a speed exceeding
50 km/h must be fi tted with a speedometer.
2.A motorcycle is not required to have a speedometer
if:
3.the speedometer or associated equipment has been
removed for repair and there are no undue delays by
the vehicle owner in having it replaced,or
4.the speedometer or associated equipment is out
of repair,repair is impracticable and a suitable
replacement is not available.


So you have to have a speedo unless it's broken.

[sinfull]

HAWK radar units were thrown out in the late 90's.

STALKER units are now mostly in use, they have front and rear radar, and 'following speed' ability

Well there ya go, lol shows how often i've been checking the clocked speed (god knows ther've been enough !)

[peasea]

1950 is the date before which no speedo is required. But there is a little known out, though I doubt it would serve your need

from the Vehicle Equipment Rule 2004


So you have to have a speedo unless it's broken.

On that basis a busted speedo could be a fair defence. Like I say, a 'not guilty' plea should be entered in all cases in the hope that there's a loophole...

Too many people simply roll over and cough up. Not I.
Make them work for it.

[Ixion]

Problem is, the ticket is 'speeding', not 'defective speedo'.

The cop says "you wuz doing naughty speed". OP can't say "No I wasn't", cos he (a) probably was; and (b) doesn't know anyway.

And it's no defence to say "Well, I don't know what speed I was going, cos my speedo was bust, so I went the same speed as other vehicles, and if I was speeding so were they". A cop can quite legally look at a line of a dozen vehicles all going at the same illegal speed, and pick out one of them to give a ticket to.

BUT: There might be an option here. Assuming the cop did have radar, then , if the OP was indeed closely following a car, there is no way the radar can show which vehicle (car or bike) was going the fastest. So one could claim "I was not speeding, it was the car, he was going faster than me" . If the cop had no radar (disclosure will show if he did), then simply deny it "The officer is well meaning but mistaken. That is shown by the fact that the officer's estimation of the speed of the car in front of me must have indicated to him that the car was travelling at a legal speed. I was doing the same speed, as shown by the fact that I was not closing on the car"

Pretty lean grounds for a defence , though. Especially as OP probably WAS speeding. hardly worth it, unless the demerits are critical.

[Ting Tong]

Did you ask to see his machine (not being rude here). They generally don't guess - being that no evidence means they can't really charge you. It is your responsbility to ensure that your vehicle remains in a warrentable state and you don't use it if you don't. Seems harsh that you are responsible but life sucks like that.

All the Police need to prove is that they saw that speed on their radar, they dont have to lock it on or show you by law, it is only a courtesy. :gob:

[Nasty]

All the Police need to prove is that they saw that speed on their radar, they dont have to lock it on or show you by law, it is only a courtesy. :gob:

They do have to evidence that it is calibrated correctly though.

[scumdog]

They do have to evidence that it is calibrated correctly though.

But they do not have to show you that info there and then at the side of the road.

[Nasty]

But they do not have to show you that info there and then at the side of the road.

Thats interesting as I was told that they did have to carry the record of calibration in the vehicle .. oh well ... I was told wrong ... I don't get caught speeding enough to warrent the knowledge ... and I am not starting now. :)

[Cr1MiNaL]

Check your PMs, advice to be read...

You listen to this man Matt.

[Patrick]

If you took it to court, the question I would ask is "How can the prosecution prove what speed I was doing?"


Therein lies the problem. This is just dodgy and you could get off....

A Mate riding perfectly legally with his wife on his immac ST1100 had a Cop Car swerve across the road (coming towards him) to pull him over. Pretty dumb manoevre if you ask me. When questioned about it, the Officer said they were targetting m/cycles and "You are the first one I've seen all day"

This kind of thing shits me... Pretty dumb is an understatement. Have him charged with Dangerous driving...


It amazes me the way police can make all kinds of illegal manouvres to catch

No they can't....


Check your PMs, advice to be read...

I am picking I don't have to send him one now, SD????


Problem is, the ticket is 'speeding', not 'defective speedo'.

The cop says "you wuz doing naughty speed". OP can't say "No I wasn't", cos he (a) probably was; and (b) doesn't know anyway.

And it's no defence to say "Well, I don't know what speed I was going, cos my speedo was bust, so I went the same speed as other vehicles, and if I was speeding so were they". A cop can quite legally look at a line of a dozen vehicles all going at the same illegal speed, and pick out one of them to give a ticket to.

BUT: There might be an option here. Assuming the cop did have radar, then , if the OP was indeed closely following a car, there is no way the radar can show which vehicle (car or bike) was going the fastest. So one could claim "I was not speeding, it was the car, he was going faster than me" . If the cop had no radar (disclosure will show if he did), then simply deny it "The officer is well meaning but mistaken. That is shown by the fact that the officer's estimation of the speed of the car in front of me must have indicated to him that the car was travelling at a legal speed. I was doing the same speed, as shown by the fact that I was not closing on the car"

Pretty lean grounds for a defence , though. Especially as OP probably WAS speeding. hardly worth it, unless the demerits are critical.

Worth writing in to the bureau about, with this point in mind.... and about the fact he does not have any locked or viewed speed, just an "estimation..."


All the Police need to prove is that they saw that speed on their radar, they dont have to lock it on or show you by law, it is only a courtesy. :gob:

True


They do have to evidence that it is calibrated correctly though.

True


Thats interesting as I was told that they did have to carry the record of calibration in the vehicle .. oh well ... I was told wrong ... I don't get caught speeding enough to warrent the knowledge ... and I am not starting now. :)


They carry it, but there is no obligation to show it at the roadside.

I do, coz it aint a problem. It removes the allegation that I filled out the log book after the event, to cover the event. I also always offer to show them the readout. If it aint locked on, I don't bother stopping unless it is worth it.... and 10-15k over aint worth it...

A fair ask to view it, and if denied, state that it might be that it isn't filled out now but will be later... Bet you they show it then. And if they still didn't, even the judge would ask, "Why not????"

[vifferman]

It amazes me the way police can make all kinds of illegal manouvres to catch up to someone they "suspect" of exceeding the speed limit even by a little bit.

No they can't....
[rant mode]That's all very well, Patrick, but if there was no accident caused, and/or no other independent witnesses, basically the court are going to say, "Well, the cop has no vested interest in this case, no reason to lie, so we'll take his word over the 'criminal' who's probably willing to lie to get off this ticket".
That may be true in many cases, but in the instances where a policeman is at fault and the motorist is innocent, the motorist is still screwed. "Innocent until proven guilty" goes right out the window.

The thing that really pisses me off with this whole focus on 'speeding criminals' is that the focus has been lost. Road rules have been written and implemented for the purpose of trying to make road transport other than a disorganised shamozzle, and to keep road users as safe as possible. The current regime is serving to alienate the motoring public to some degree, and to make people feel more than a bit of antipathy towards the police.
from a personal point of view, I have deserved each of the three tickets I've been given, and they were far enough over the speedlimit (32, 22, 22km/h) to warrant that I wasn't just let off with a warning. However, I wondered whether if I'd been going say 12km/h over the limit in each case whether I would've still been pursued and ticketed. In the first instance, the policeman was hidden in a lay-by next to an overtaking lane. I'd been travelling behind a smoky 4WD at 80-90km/h for maybe 15 km or so, and
was a bit 'exuberant' when I first got an opportunity to overtake. As soon as I was past, I slowed to the speed limit again.
Traffic was heavy, so to catch and ticket me, the cop had to exceed the speed limit for about 10km, and pass maybe 30 cars on a very busy road (with no passing lanes). He was right to do so, given my overtaking speed, but who caused the most danger to the safety of other road users?

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying my ticket was unfair, and the cop should've gone, "Nah - traffic's too heavy; I'll let him go". It just got me thinking about the whole philosophy behind traffic enforcement, and whether it was in touch with the intent of the laws it seeks to enforce. This isn't really a police issue - the Gubmint has screwed things up by focusing on enforcement (because it's easy) rather than education and engineering. Even their focus on the road toll is simplistic and flawed. It should be on the basis of incidents/injuries/deaths per vehicle mile traveled, not just "We want to get it below 300 deaths per annum" to have any hope of reflecting its effectiveness.
[/rant mode]

[peasea]

[rant mode] Even their focus on the road toll is simplistic and flawed. It should be on the basis of incidents/injuries/deaths per vehicle mile traveled, not just "We want to get it below 300 deaths per annum" to have any hope of reflecting its effectiveness.
[/rant mode]

You're absolutely right. Deaths per 10,000 vehicles and 100,000 people in recent years (the last time I checked) were the lowest for decades. Sure 400 people dead every year is absolutely tragic but it's been around that figure for six years with the exception of '03 when 461 were killed. The historical statistics make interesting reading at the ltnz site, if you have the time.

[peasea]

I've lifted this from an ltnz press release:

"The deadliest year on our roads was 1973, when 843 were killed. As recently as 1990 there were 729 road deaths in New Zealand. Since then annual road deaths have dropped by 47 percent, in spite of a 42 percent increase in the number of vehicles on the road and a 21 percent increase in population."

Motor cars that have disc brakes everywhere, crumple zones and air bags have probably helped.

[Ixion]

And the number injured has increased in proportion. Because modern medical treatment and helicopter ambulances and cell phones, mean many that in 1973 would have died now survive (albeit much smashed up)

[peasea]

And the number injured has increased in proportion. Because modern medical treatment and helicopter ambulances and cell phones, mean many that in 1973 would have died now survive (albeit much smashed up)

Absolutely.

Furthermore, the cost of fixing up those mashed survivours is horrendous and I (like many others) cannot understand why (according to the ltnz site) 24% of the dead last year weren't wearing seat belts!!! It doesn't get much more basic than making it click; there's 100 that could possibly have survived for a start. And then 28% of fatal accidents had alcohol as a factor.

....and they bang on and on about speeding...........

[jaykay]

If you intend to pay the ticket then why not have some fun on the way, without any risk or cost (apart from some time).

Firstly you do NOT have to pay the original ticket - a Reminder Notice has to be sent by law.

Then reply to the Reminder Notice (at the very last minute) with something like "without a copy of the original ticket to determine the validity of the allegation a hearing is requested".

It's quite possible for the Police to make a mistake in the proceedings or simply decide to move on to easier targets if you make life difficult for them. Rolling over and paying is not what I would suggest.

Remember it's much easier to fight the first 20 demerits rather than the last 20.

[scumdog]

Remember it's much easier to fight the first 20 demerits rather than the last 20.

And even easier not to accumulate any demerits at all :devil2:.

[Soul.Trader]

If you intend to pay the ticket then why not have some fun on the way, without any risk or cost (apart from some time).

Firstly you do NOT have to pay the original ticket - a Reminder Notice has to be sent by law.

Then reply to the Reminder Notice (at the very last minute) with something like "without a copy of the original ticket to determine the validity of the allegation a hearing is requested".

It's quite possible for the Police to make a mistake in the proceedings or simply decide to move on to easier targets if you make life difficult for them. Rolling over and paying is not what I would suggest.

Remember it's much easier to fight the first 20 demerits rather than the last 20.

This is exactly what I would do if I wanted to pay court costs on top of the fine.

[peasea]

And even easier not to accumulate any demerits at all :devil2:.

By arming oneself?

[scumdog]

By arming oneself?

Whatever turns yer crank, whatever turns yer crank...:whistle:

[peasea]

Whatever turns yer crank, whatever turns yer crank...:whistle:

This would be more the thing actually..........

[scumdog]

This would be more the thing actually..........

But will it prevent ya getting demerits???????????

[peasea]

But will it prevent ya getting demerits???????????

If the engine/operator combination behind it works satisfactorily, then 'yes'.

[Patrick]

If the engine/operator combination behind it works satisfactorily, then 'yes'.

Always has been the "operator" fault though really..... need to have that fixed, not at the vets fixed, either... though that might calm some of the testosterone I suppose....

[peasea]

Always has been the "operator" fault though really..... need to have that fixed, not at the vets fixed, either... though that might calm some of the testosterone I suppose....

Rubbish, it's those pesky downhill runs, chock full of gravity, and a myriad of long, tunnel-like straights that are to blame.

[scumdog]

Rubbish, it's those pesky downhill runs, chock full of gravity, and a myriad of long, tunnel-like straights that are to blame.

That combined with poor short range vision and an overly weak throttle-return spring, that'll do it every time.

[mowgli]

I should point out at this point that my speedo isnt working at the moment due to an unfortunate accident with my disc lock.
When you pick up your new speedo cable buy one of those curly cable thingys that goes from your disc lock, over the throttle and hooks onto the front brake lever. Might prevent similar from happening in future.

Also as this is your first ticket it might be worth fighting to preserve your clean driving record. Might come in handy one day.

Umm i rode without a speedo cable for well over a month and did not get a ticket. Why didnt you just go by the rev counter?
Clearly not an option for poor mattian but I'm with you McDuck. Learning rpm+speed combos helps me to remember which gear I'm in when I forget. If I ever lost the speedo then gear+rpm would keep me out of tickets (or at least I'd know whether Mr Plod was telling porkies)

[peasea]

(or at least I'd know whether Mr Plod was telling porkies)


That NEVER happens!
Goodness gracious, what are you thinking?

[scumdog]

If I ever lost the speedo then gear+rpm would keep me out of tickets (or at least I'd know whether Mr Plod was telling porkies)

Ya can tell if somebody is telling porkies with one of them things?:blink:

Jeeze, gotta get me one of THEM, that's for sure!!;)

[jrandom]

... make life difficult for them.

Ever considered just taking it like a man if you get caught breaking the law?

If you don't want to get caught, learn to use the throttle wisely.

;)

[mowgli]

Ya can tell if somebody is telling porkies with one of them things?:blink:

Jeeze, gotta get me one of THEM, that's for sure!!;)
Haha, yes well I guess I asked for that. Lets just say that I'd be more vociferous in my own defence if I was confident I wasn't actually speeding.

A guy I know got out of a speeding ticket at the roadside by arguing successfully that because the officer detected him at an angle that the speed detected wasn't accurate. He blagged some Pythagoras and the officer bought it (or perhaps took pity on him). The funniest thing was that this guy believed it himself. He didn't realise that his argument, if calculated properly, would have revealed his speed even higher. :lol:

[scumdog]

. He didn't realise that his argument, if calculated properly, would have revealed his speed even higher. :lol:

Yeah, a lot don't even think of that!!!

(never done the calculations though - got 18% in School Cert maths and shit like that makes my head hurt!)

[jrandom]

He blagged some Pythagoras and the officer bought it (or perhaps took pity on him). The funniest thing was that this guy believed it himself. He didn't realise that his argument, if calculated properly, would have revealed his speed even higher. :lol:

Heh! That's quite funny; I had the same thought myself when I got my last ticket, closely followed by the same realisation that I'd better shut my pie-hole in case the officer concerned remembered any of his high-school trig.

I wonder if I should share here the fascinating corollary that riding in a perfect circle around the cop's doppler radar unit would make your speed completely undetectable?

:laugh:

[peasea]

Ever considered just taking it like a man if you get caught breaking the law?



;)

OUCH!
(Walks off bow-legged......)

[jrandom]

(Walks off bow-legged......)

Walkin' bow-legged, eh?

I prescribe either less throttle, or a lot more...

[Swoop]

But will it prevent ya getting demerits???????????
If that was coupled to the main driving wheel of the bike, I think demerits wouldn't be a problem.
Getting anywhere on time and the amount of batteries used up, could be another matter entirely.:lol:

[Patrick]

got 18% in School Cert maths and shit like that makes my head hurt!)


Cheeze boy..... did ya speld ya name rong in the maffs test? That will be wirf a pass at least these days....

[Banesto John]

A guy I know got out of a speeding ticket at the roadside by arguing successfully that because the officer detected him at an angle that the speed detected wasn't accurate. He blagged some Pythagoras and the officer bought it (or perhaps took pity on him). The funniest thing was that this guy believed it himself. He didn't realise that his argument, if calculated properly, would have revealed his speed even higher. :lol:

It's called cosine angle effect. It's always in the driver's favour, because cosines go from zero to one.

Multiply your speed by the cosine of the angle of deflection between the axis of the laser/radar beam and your vector of travel, multiply that figure by the inverse of the cosine, and you will have your actual speed.

Suggestion two is look at your speedo, and hold your wrist so as to adjust the colourful little needle to within coooeeeee of the speed limit.

Just think yourself lucky the ticket doesn't cost more.

The cosine angle effect is negligent most of the time, that's why they don't worry about it. Interestingly (well, I'm interested), the speed cameras have a slant radar principle, and factor in 22.5 degrees as the fixed cosine. I have heard they set it at 23 degrees, to give the motorist a break.

Wow. Is all the stuff I wrote true, or did I just dream it?

[Patrick]

Multiply your speed by the cosine of the angle of deflection between the axis of the laser/radar beam and your vector of travel, multiply that figure by the inverse of the cosine, and you will have your actual speed.

Say waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhttt????????????

Thats almost geeky.....:Pokey:

[Banesto John]

Geeky it is. Factual as well.

[slopster]

Don't write a letter making excuses. Write in asking for a defended hearing and I'll bet you won't have to go - the police will probably back down a couple of days before the hearing is scheduled. I'm sure the policeman wouldn't be able to convince the judge that he can estimate speed that accurately coming head on (its not like he saw you were doubling the speed limit or anything silly like that). At the end of the day the worst that can happen is a small chance of getting hit with $130 court costs.

[Speedracer]

All the Police need to prove is that they saw that speed on their radar, they dont have to lock it on or show you by law, it is only a courtesy. :gob:

R U B B I S H
Got a ticket for 120, locked in radar said 110. Cop who gave me the ticket was a bit of a knob and I didn't think I was speeding at the time. So I spent the next 7 months wanking around to clear everything up after the ticket was issued but I got the speed reduced to 110 without even seeing a judge, spending $ on a lawyer or travelling to court.
PS Cop said: "I saw you doing 120" exact words
http://www.fastandsafe.org.nz/Pages/Media/RadarEvidence18Feb05.htm
They tried everything to get me to incriminate myself, very subtle sometimes.

According to the article: (one example out of the several in there)
Cops opinion:
Canterbury Road Policing manager Derek Erasmus reiterated the police stance, saying an officer did not have to lock a speed in.

"Best practice indicates that we do it because it removes those arguments further down the track but sometimes ... it's not physically possible to lock it in."

An officer may have to act quickly if a driver was coming around a corner and would not have time to lock the speed in, Erasmus said.

Judges opinion (i.e. the one that counts!)
The Rangiora District Court ruled in McHerron's favour, with two Justices of the Peace saying: "This issue for us is whether there has been a burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt regarding the excessive speed ... to cast light or doubt on the actual speed under consideration and in the interests of justice we think it is not unreasonable for the driver to see the actual locked-in radar speed.

"In this instance it was not available and does create an element of doubt to the actual speed for the defendant."



Feel free to PM me and I will explain what to do and what to expect if you are in this situation. Defending a ticket can be confusing at first.