Police ignore High Court judge.

[jaykay]

Strictly speaking this is a follow up to “another speed camera rant”, but that thread is getting cluttered up – as a result of recent happenings now is the time for this……………..

As the Police have chosen to ignore a High Court judge, everyone (everyone who can be bothered that is), can fight any motoring ticket – with almost zero risk. And the more tickets that are argued, the lower the risk!

In the Christchurch High Court, Justice John Hansen – Climate Zone Holdings Ltd v Police, 28/02/2008.

“The back of the (Reminder) notice states:
“If you wish to deny liability in respect of the alleged offence, you must, within 28 days after service of this notice, write to the informant at the address shown on the front page of this notice requesting a hearing in respect of the (alleged) offence……….”

(Justice Hansen) That, of course, as is conceded by the crown, is completely wrong. What is required under the relevant provisions of the Act is that the notice requesting a hearing is to be received within the 28-day period. That is not what is said, and inevitably, what is put on the back of the notice means that anyone receiving it would think they could write properly claiming a hearing up to and including 28 days after service. Why such a gross error appears in a form that must be issued thousands of times I am unaware. One can only hope that it is immediately corrected.”

The Police chose to ignore these recommendations. At the very worst, fighting a ticket may mean having to pay the fine and some additional costs. But my experiences show that the chances of this happening are surprisingly small – with the right defence (and some time and effort) the chances are that the case will never even make it to court – and any hearing that does make it to court will be illegal (and open to High Court appeals).
So, to fight back against the system, follow these steps. Even if you intend to pay the fine, following the steps will delay payment for many months (and will also delay any demerit points and reduce the time they apply for, demerit points are not applied until a fine is paid).

1. Always wait for the Reminder Notice, even the Police have to send one by law.

2. One day before the due date (helpfully shown), write and put into the post a letter. Put your name, address, Reminder Notice reference number and write the following “Without a copy of the original ticket a hearing is requested”. Don’t forget to sign it and put it into the post BEFORE the 28 deadline. KEEP A COPY OF THE LETTER.

3. If the ticket is for a speed camera write “Without a photograph to identify the person responsible a hearing is requested”.

4. The Police will almost certainly write back saying either you were too late to ask for a hearing or ignoring your request entirely – and saying you have to sort the matter out with the Ministry of Justice.

5. The waiting game. You will have around three months to wait before going to your local court and completing a Form 57, (to correct an irregularity in proceedings). The Form can be completed any time after six months and one day from the date of the alleged offence. Tick the box that says something like” you believed on reasonable grounds that a hearing was requested”. Despite the fact that a Form 57 is a sworn document you may be required to show a copy of the letter (above). It’s quite possible the court will chase payment of the fine during the three months, if you are the panicking sort contact the Fines collection centre and say you are going to complete a Form 57. Due to an overloaded system the court will not enforce fine payment without giving you plenty of opportunity to pay.

6. The reason for waiting six months and one day (from the date of the alleged offence) is that the in law the matter cannot continue IF the Police send a fresh Reminder Notice. Sending another Reminder Notice appears to be the only way the Police can deal with the matter – and is an admission they have messed up. You can only get a Notice of Fine if you have not paid the fine and NOT requested a hearing.

7. There is a procedure to deal with a Reminder Notice that is out of time, to keep this posting to a reasonable length I won’t go into it now, suffice to say that someone I am helping, whose alleged offence dates back to November 2007, has just had his request for a hearing to a recent Reminder Notice rejected as being outside the 28 days. He has proof it was posted within 28 days – and if it ever gets into court it will be around a year old. (The reply to the first Reminder Notice back in February was almost identical).

8. Bear in mind there is some running around which will take some time – but the monetary costs are minimal. If you value your time then pay the fine, if you want to have some fun and save yourself money (and possibly your licence) get writing.

Note that only one out of around 20 cases I have been involved with over the last few years has resulted in a guilty verdict in court, and the defence was very poor. All the other cases have been dropped or withdrawn saving innocent motorists over $2000.

That’s it for now, I’ll do my best to answer any queries (or criticism). No, I don't have demerit points, nor do I have any personal cases in the system.

Don't forget to donate any savings to kiwibiker.

[Moki]

Great advice. I'll have to remember that "next time"

[sidecar bob]

Or alternatively you could just face up to your misdemeanour & pay your fine & get on with your life as per #8
FFS, i could earn many dozens of times the average cost of a fine in the time it would take me to fuck around with all that crap.
Great advice for those that would use it though, 'onya mate.

[CookMySock]

well fuck me dead, thats what I have been saying all along.. /fail

DB

[davereid]

...FFS, i could earn many dozens of times the average cost of a fine in the time it would take me to fuck around with all that crap.
Great advice for those that would use it though, 'onya mate.

Paying the fine is the easy bit.. the associated demerits may be more important.

Personally, I have never used this trick, although I always take every ticket to court.

I not had to pay a ticket yet, although I guess one day the gods won't smile.

[enigma51]

well fuck me dead, thats what I have been saying all along.. /fail

DB

what you worried about your on a hyosomething they dont go fast enough :nya:

[CookMySock]

what you worried about your on a hyosomething they dont go fast enough :nya:Puhleeeeze... :sweatdrop a poor attempt..

DB

[Swoop]

One day before the due date (helpfully shown), write and put into the post a letter... Don’t forget to sign it and put it into the post BEFORE the 28 deadline. KEEP A COPY OF THE LETTER.
If you are going to go to this hassle, you had better keep a receipt from the PostShop that you actually sent it. Just in case it "goes missing in the mail system".

[Max Preload]

That's the way, mate. Roll over. Let them further erode your rights. I guess eventually they'll go to erode some you personally value but of course then you won't have any rights left to fight with.

I see the typical NZ attitude of apathy is alive and well! :niceone:


Or alternatively you could just face up to your misdemeanour & pay your fine & get on with your life as per #8
FFS, i could earn many dozens of times the average cost of a fine in the time it would take me to fuck around with all that crap.
Great advice for those that would use it though, 'onya mate.

[ManDownUnder]

...saving innocent motorists over $2000...

...at the risk of being a real pointy head (and actually only replying for the laugh)... ummm...

I guess you're innocent until proven guilty so - innocent could be applicable in that sense. But I do stuggle a bit with the term if a motorist was actually doing 30kph over the limit, even though they got off the charge through this technicality.

[Kickaha]

Or alternatively you could just face up to your misdemeanour & pay your fine & get on with your life
.

Accept personal responsiblty for their actions?, you're fucking joking!

[sidecar bob]

Accept personal responsiblty for their actions?, you're fucking joking!

Yeah, i know, It seems a long shot in this day & age i suppose.
Better to just deny it & fuck people around.
See what happens when they stopped caning kids at school.

[CookMySock]

Better to just deny it & fuck people around.Gee its not like hes trying to date your daughter or steal your dog is it ? Why the personal approach ? Its the fucking gubmint maaaaan.. Geez next you will be telling me you don't exceed the speedlimit, always park properly, never smoke dope, and never screw around. :innocent: Live a little, bro.

DB

[sidecar bob]

Gee its not like hes trying to date your daughter or steal your dog is it ? Why the personal approach ? Its the fucking gubmint maaaaan.. Geez next you will be telling me you don't exceed the speedlimit, always park properly, never smoke dope, and never screw around. :innocent: Live a little, bro.

DB

Oh, i live a lot, in fact it makes your wee list seem rather boring, it wasnt personal, i just think when you fuck it up, wether its speeding, or banging into someones car in a car park, you come clean & take it on the chin & dont dissapear & be a burden on your fellow taxpayer or insurance payer, otherwise you become a weasal.

[Cruisin' Craig]

That's the way, mate. Roll over. Let them further erode your rights. I guess eventually they go to erode some you personally value but of course then you won't have any rights left to fight with.

I see the typical NZ attitude of apathy is alive and well! :niceone:

Let them erode my right to do what precisely?
Speed and then not pay a fine when you get caught?
Or did you mean clog up the justice system that tax payers are supporting with bogus claims of innocence so that the country ends up financing an ineffective system?

[Bikernereid]

Let them erode my right to do what precisely?
Speed and then not pay a fine when you get caught?
Or did you mean clog up the justice system that tax payers are supporting with bogus claims of innocence so that the country ends up financing an ineffective system?


if the powers that be do not know how to close a legal loophole why shouldn't people make the most of it!!

I got off a £60 ($150) parking ticket because the numpty had written it for a year in advance. If that person can't do their job properly then so be it, I will make the most of it and save myself some cash!!

[swbarnett]

& dont dissapear & be a burden on your fellow taxpayer or insurance payer,
How is someone that simply exceeded the posted speed limit a burden on their fellow tax payer?

[tommorth]

weasel weasel weasel lol fuck thats a funny word

[awayatc]

Let them erode my right to do what precisely?
Speed and then not pay a fine when you get caught?
Or did you mean clog up the justice system that tax payers are supporting with bogus claims of innocence so that the country ends up financing an ineffective system?


It's a game isn't it? We are not talking about murder or tax evasion.....
You get punished for breaking the rules.....but since I did not make those rules, I will grab every little bit of advantage those rules allow me.....

After all that is the name of the game isn't it....?

[Winston001]

As the Police have chosen to ignore a High Court judge, .....

In the Christchurch High Court, Justice John Hansen – Climate Zone Holdings Ltd v Police, 28/02/2008.

(Justice Hansen) That, of course, as is conceded by the crown, is completely wrong. What is required .........One can only hope that it is immediately corrected.”


The Police chose to ignore these recommendations.


........(and will also delay any demerit points and reduce the time they apply for, demerit points are not applied until a fine is paid).

etc...


Don't forget to donate any savings to kiwibiker.


Good on you for drawing our attention to this. Whether any individual wants to pursue your advice is for each to choose. Just a couple of matters:

Justice Hansen's words appear to be obiter which means they are kind of legal musings, thinking aloud, but he is not making a ruling that the tickets are illegal and unenforceable. They could be - but that isn't exactly what he is saying.

The other point is that once a conviction is entered, the demerit points are imposed on your licence from the date of the offence - not the date of conviction. So even if it is a year later, the points fall on the day you were issued the TON = Traffic Offence Notice.

[Max Preload]

Let them erode my right to do what precisely?
Speed and then not pay a fine when you get caught?
Or did you mean clog up the justice system that tax payers are supporting with bogus claims of innocence so that the country ends up financing an ineffective system?

Victimless 'crime' (it's not even a crime - it's an infringement on a regulation). Don't confuse what we have with a 'justice' system either - it's nothing of the sort. The people who are targeted are those who can afford it, not those who deserve it.

Perhaps you and the other apathetic ones (one of which I see has red rep'd me for my earlier post :cry: :rofl:) should familiarise yourselves with Martin Niemoeller's poem "First they came for...".

[Cruisin' Craig]

Victimless 'crime' (it's not even a crime - it's an infringement on a regulation). Don't confuse what we have with a 'justice' system either - it's nothing of the sort. The people who are targeted are those who can afford it, not those who deserve it.

Perhaps you and the other apathetic ones (one of which I see has red rep'd me for my earlier post :cry: :rofl:) should familiarise yourselves with Martin Niemoeller's poem "First they came for...".

Firstly, not agreeing with your argument is not the same as being apathetic. I would be apathetic if I agreed with you and STILL didn't do anything.

Second, whether or not you like the justice system has nothing to do with whether it's O.K to break the law and then dick the police AND ministry of justice around (at the expense of the taxpayers dollars) rather than accept some modicum of responsibility.

[sidecar bob]

How is someone that simply exceeded the posted speed limit a burden on their fellow tax payer?

They are not a burden by simply exceeding the speed limit, it is when they tie up countless hours of public servants time on a pointless & expensive paper trail that they become a burden.
No doubt you are the same people that bleat your asses off about the taxation rate, or dont you understand how that works either?
Im more than a little surprised that people are happy to put their hand up in this day & age & proudly admit to not taking responsibility for their actions.
I thought that kind of behaviour stopped somwhere between the ages of six & eight.

[Max Preload]

...whether it's speeding or banging into someone's car in a carpark, you come clean & take it on the chin & don't disappear & be a burden on your fellow taxpayer or insurance payer, otherwise you become a weasel.

Two completely different things. In the case of banging into someones car, there's a victim. Do you post in your cash every time you don't signal for the full 4 seconds prior to a lane change? :devil2:

[awayatc]

Firstly, not agreeing with your argument is not the same as being apathetic. I would be apathetic if I agreed with you and STILL didn't do anything.

Second, whether or not you like the justice system has nothing to do with whether it's O.K to break the law and then dick the police AND ministry of justice around (at the expense of the taxpayers dollars) rather than accept some modicum of responsibility.


The number of tickets issued for minor speeding offenses in New Zealand has skyrocketed. In 2001, there were just 311 tickets issued to motorists accused of driving between 4 and 6 km per hour over the limit. Last year, that number grew to 34,651 with a total of NZD $46.5 million (US $32.3 million) collected from all speeding fines.

"The huge ticket rise has the smell of quotas about it," National Party Police Spokesman Chester Borrows said in a statement.

Figures show that while the number of tickets issued for minor violations has increased, the number of tickets issued for serious violations has dropped 35 percent.


Appears to be a very profitable racket......

taxpayer is being robbed allright....

[fireliv]

Good advice


On s side note, if you get an INFRINGEMENT (excess speed etc) and you contest it in court and get found prove, make sure the Justices of the Peace only chage you $30 court costs. If there try and charge you $130 this is grounds for an appeal or rehearing.
However if you have a CHARGE (careless driving etc) then its $130. If you have never been in trouble before, and the driving charge you get brought in on doesnt have a mandatory disqalification peroid, then you may be elgiable for diversion, so make sure you check it out

[Max Preload]

Second, whether or not you like the justice system has nothing to do with whether it's O.K to break the law and then dick the police AND ministry of justice around (at the expense of the taxpayers dollars) rather than accept some modicum of responsibility.

Speeding is not against the law.

[Cruisin' Craig]

The number of tickets issued for minor speeding offenses in New Zealand has skyrocketed. In 2001, there were just 311 tickets issued to motorists accused of driving between 4 and 6 km per hour over the limit. Last year, that number grew to 34,651 with a total of NZD $46.5 million (US $32.3 million) collected from all speeding fines.

"The huge ticket rise has the smell of quotas about it," National Party Police Spokesman Chester Borrows said in a statement.

Figures show that while the number of tickets issued for minor violations has increased, the number of tickets issued for serious violations has dropped 35 percent.


Appears to be a very profitable racket......

taxpayer is being robbed allright....


I'd like to point out that fairly recently the police started ticketing for speed in excess of 5km/h above the limit near schools and kindergartens (which I support), so it follows that minor infringement notices should have gone up dramatically as a result. But that's a minor point.

I'd also like to point out that more tickets for minor violations doesn't necessarily mean police are trying to rip people off. It might just be that they are doing a better job than they used to.

Why has tickets issued for major violations dropped? Is it because a greater police presence on the road has reduced major infringements? Or is it because people are just getting away with it? There's a great deal that your figures don't say, and I think it would be a mistake to read much into them without doing a lot of reading first.

Here's a graph that tells a pretty straightforward story though. And as long as police effort is having this kind of positive result I support what they are doing, and I don't support people who speed, get caught, and won't even pay their fine in spite of what the police are trying to do.

It really all comes down to a sense of social responsibility. It is not, as some believe, a game to see how much you can get away with.

[swbarnett]

They are not a burden by simply exceeding the speed limit, it is when they tie up countless hours of public servants time on a pointless & expensive paper trail that they become a burden.
Yes, I see your point. However, I think the politicians that made such pointless laws in the first place must share some of the blame.


No doubt you are the same people that bleat your asses off about the taxation rate, or dont you understand how that works either?
I presume you mean that we have to pay more tax because people decide to use loopholes? We are not the ones that decided to spend a disproportionate amount of public money chasing red herrings. Putting good money after bad is why our taxes are too high.


Im more than a little surprised that people are happy to put their hand up in this day & age & proudly admit to not taking responsibility for their actions.
I thought that kind of behaviour stopped somwhere between the ages of six & eight.
I take full responsibility for my actions. This is one reason I object to laws that are really only in place because others don't.

[bigfoot]

So I had to deal with the police on a similar front.


Heres the letter I posted on not quite the 27th day, but close.
Waddya fellas think ? Its basically a pissed off reaction to being pulled over by a cop in a patrol car who claimed to also be a motorcycle cop, which is bollocks coz when I said the faster you go, the less the wind blows you around in your lane, HE SAID HE DIDNT BELIEVE ME


P.S There is no bullshit in the letter

[speedpro]

Lies, lies, damned lies, and statistics.
What if for example the vehicle fleet had increased as per the chart but nearly everyone just had them in the garage to look at because they couldn't afford the gas to run them? A more meaningful comparison "I" think would be between fleet miles travelled and accident data.
I used to have 2 cars and 5 bikes so my case would make these stats as presented look very good versus a person with only 1 vehicle who crashed as often.
If you only drive to the dairy once a year and crash every time it has the same result with these stats as the truck driver who drives AK-Wgtn return twice a week and crashes once in the year.
Speeding is not a major cause of crashes. Being a dick, silly/inappropriate speed, substandard skills or vehicle, or fatigue "I" think would all contribute more to the crash count. Therefore it is obvious to me that the majority of issued speeding tickets are no more than revenue collecting, quota meeting, pollitician pleasing bullshit. Good on anyone who contributes to difficulty collecting revenue from them.:niceone:

[Bikernereid]

The number of tickets issued for minor speeding offenses in New Zealand has skyrocketed. In 2001, there were just 311 tickets issued to motorists accused of driving between 4 and 6 km per hour over the limit. Last year, that number grew to 34,651 with a total of NZD $46.5 million (US $32.3 million) collected from all speeding fines.

"The huge ticket rise has the smell of quotas about it," National Party Police Spokesman Chester Borrows said in a statement.

Figures show that while the number of tickets issued for minor violations has increased, the number of tickets issued for serious violations has dropped 35 percent.


Appears to be a very profitable racket......

taxpayer is being robbed allright....

Tax Payer getting robbed, NEVER!! Gosh that is such a terrible thing to say;)
The government made £6million in 6 months on the M25 in speeding tickets and the crazy thing is that the speed cameras caused so many bloody accidents it was unreal!

But at the end io the day if any of us found a really easy way of making cash would we not take it too. But then again people do and they tend to get arrested for it!!

[speedpro]

The speed cameras didn't cause any accidents, unless one fell over onto a car. Drivers (over)reaction to the cameras caused accidents which points back to the lack of skill and alertness thing again.

[Max Preload]

...basically a pissed off reaction to being pulled over by a cop in a patrol car who claimed to also be a motorcycle cop, which is bollocks coz when I said the faster you go, the less the wind blows you around in your lane, HE SAID HE DIDNT BELIEVE ME

So not only is he not a bike rider, he's not much of a physicist either. He should have been out on a bike yesterday like I was, with the gusty conditions. Maybe then he'd realise it's all true about crosswinds affecting you much less at speed on a bike.

[davereid]

....The other point is that once a conviction is entered, the demerit points are imposed on your licence from the date of the offence - not the date of conviction. So even if it is a year later, the points fall on the day you were issued the TON = Traffic Offence Notice.

Hi Winston, very interesting infomation.
So how does this work ?

Lets say I have enough points in the kitty to get a 6-month suspension with only 1 more itsy bitsy ticket.

But.. these points are ancient.. they are about to be cleared.

I get a ticket.. but stall it through the courts for a year or so.

Finally, I lose, and the points are added to my licence, at the date I got the ticket.

So, I'm already well clear of the disqualification ?

[sidecar bob]

Two completely different things. In the case of banging into someones car, there's a victim. Do you post in your cash every time you don't signal for the full 4 seconds prior to a lane change? :devil2:

Ahh, so you should only take responsibility for your actions if there is a victim!! ok, i understand now.
This is more about values than specific instances.
If youre happy to fuck one group of people around then chances are you will do it to other groups as well, ie Tradesmen, landlords etc.
Im happy with my values system & the kind of friends it attracts & i wouldnt swap them with anyone.

[swbarnett]

If youre happy to fuck one group of people around then chances are you will do it to other groups as well, ie Tradesmen, landlords etc.
The issue here is that they fucked with us first.

[swbarnett]

... the faster you go, the less the wind blows you around in your lane,
Not only is this a gyroscopic affect but one of simple geometry. If you get hit by a gust from the side you spend the time it takes you to cross the path of the gust getting pushed sideways. The faster you go the less time it takes you to come out the other side of the gust therefore the lower the sideways drift.

[more_fasterer]

I'd like to point out that fairly recently the police started ticketing for speed in excess of 5km/h above the limit near schools and kindergartens (which I support), so it follows that minor infringement notices should have gone up dramatically as a result. But that's a minor point.

I'd also like to point out that more tickets for minor violations doesn't necessarily mean police are trying to rip people off. It might just be that they are doing a better job than they used to.

Anecdotal evidence points to some fairly major errors in your assumptions.
I received a ticket for 5km/h over on the motorway, in light traffic. The kicker was that the idiot 200m ahead of me (and about 150m ahead of the cop at the time) who tried to change lanes into the side of a truck got nothing. The only thing that prevented a major injury accident was the truck driver's quick reactions. When questioned, the officer told me that they had to target the "serious offenders"!

In regard to your second paragraph, have a look at the violent crime statistics and the crash statistics for NZ to get an idea of whether the police are doing a better job at "protecting and serving", as opposed to doing a better job at "revenue raising".

[Patrick]

Can someone explain how the 28 day argument used here has anything to do with speeding, the reason one was ticketed for, in the first place?


The issue here is that they fucked with us first.

They made you speed? Bastards!!!!!! Entrapment!!!!

[Max Preload]

Ahh, so you should only take responsibility for your actions if there is a victim!! ok, i understand now.
This is more about values than specific instances.
If youre happy to fuck one group of people around then chances are you will do it to other groups as well, ie Tradesmen, landlords etc.
Im happy with my values system & the kind of friends it attracts & i wouldnt swap them with anyone.

First you claim you understand, then you start going on about fucking people around. It's the person getting the ticket that is getting fucked around. Everyone else is getting paid for it.

If there's no victim, where's the concern? I'm all for personal responsibility. But I'm also all for do whatever the fuck you want unless it affects other people. I guess you're in the 'some people can't be trusted, so restrict everyone' corner. That's more apathy.

[speedpro]

They made you speed? Bastards!!!!!! Entrapment!!!!

What he was getting at was the overzealous enforcement of ridiculously low speed limits with ridiculously low tolerances and often with little common sense being applied regarding the circumstances of the alleged offence/misdemeanour.

[swbarnett]

Can someone explain how the 28 day argument used here has anything to do with speeding, the reason one was ticketed for, in the first place?
I think it's that this is the most common reason this kind of action is required. Due to speed being made a priority for enforcement.


They made you speed? Bastards!!!!!! Entrapment!!!!
No, they didn't. What they did was make a perfectly "safe" activity illegal in the name of improved safety. It's one thing to be done for driving "too fast for the conditions" but it's another matter all together when it's just that you were over an arbitrary number regardless of the conditions.

A zero road toll is a myth and the cost to society of aiming for this unattainable perfection is something we can't afford. And not just on the roads.

[Winston001]

Hi Winston, very interesting infomation.
So how does this work ?

Lets say I have enough points in the kitty to get a 6-month suspension with only 1 more itsy bitsy ticket.

But.. these points are ancient.. they are about to be cleared.

I get a ticket.. but stall it through the courts for a year or so.

Finally, I lose, and the points are added to my licence, at the date I got the ticket.

So, I'm already well clear of the disqualification ?

Good question and it's quite a while since I looked at it for ....er, reasons of self interest shall we say :sleep:

It used to be that the points only accrued from the date of conviction so the longer that could be delayed, the better. Then they amended the law. :Pokey:

The upshot is that, Yes, your licence is suspended. All that has happened is the suspension notice hasn't been sent and your licence picked up until a year or so after the trigger point. Only operates from the day your licence is handed in or collected. Or you get stopped :spanking:

[Patrick]

What he was getting at was the overzealous enforcement of ridiculously low speed limits with ridiculously low tolerances and often with little common sense being applied regarding the circumstances of the alleged offence/misdemeanour.

The roads are crap, the driver ability is worse. Not necessarily yours (which is none too flash if we are honest with ourselves...) but the other numpty who "didn't see you" as they pull out of god knows where while you are speeding along.....

What are those signs on the side of the road, those 50, 70 or 100 ones within the red circle... it means something to most...

Bugger... can't think what it is.....


A zero road toll is a myth and the cost to society of aiming for this unattainable perfection is something we can't afford. And not just on the roads.

Zero is a myth. A reduction would be great... especially to those families who get to keep theirs as a result of any reduction....

[swbarnett]

Zero is a myth. A reduction would be great... especially to those families who get to keep theirs as a result of any reduction....
While I agree that a reduction would be nice there are two reasons why I don't believe this is achievable.

1. We are so near to zero already that there is a case to say that we are already there.

2. The cost of any further reductions, if not already there, is getting close to being unsupportable. Both in terms of financial and social costs.

The very concept that I have to pay the price for someone else's bad driving or simple human error is something that can only breed resentment and erode the very fabric that holds our society together - an individual's basic respect for their fellow societal members.

[Indoo]

2. The cost of any further reductions, if not already there, is getting close to being unsupportable. Both in terms of financial and social costs.

How so? I know that the cost of each road death to society is estimated at some 1 million dollars or something, what are the costs of reducing that?


The very concept that I have to pay the price for someone else's bad driving or simple human error is something that can only breed resentment and erode the very fabric that holds our society together - an individual's basic respect for their fellow societal members.

Thats dramatizing it a wee bit isn't it? I think most people in society recognize the need for a speed limit, some might not like it when they are made to obey it themselves but still see it as a necessary evil as its unfortunately unworkable to have a graduated speed limit depending on driver skill and conditions. I might not like having a 110km speed limit placed on me but I like having it placed on most other road users.

[scumdog]

The number of tickets issued for minor speeding offenses in New Zealand has skyrocketed. In 2001, there were just 311 tickets issued to motorists accused of driving between 4 and 6 km per hour over the limit. Last year, that number grew to 34,651 with a total of NZD $46.5 million (US $32.3 million) collected from all speeding fines.

"The huge ticket rise has the smell of quotas about it," National Party Police Spokesman Chester Borrows said in a statement.

Figures show that while the number of tickets issued for minor violations has increased, the number of tickets issued for serious violations has dropped 35 percent.


Appears to be a very profitable racket......

taxpayer is being robbed allright....

Yup, no end of muppets and slack-jawed mouth-breathing losers out there to help pay my salary...

[scumdog]

Therefore it is obvious to me that the majority of issued speeding tickets are no more than revenue collecting, quota meeting, pollitician pleasing bullshit. Good on anyone who contributes to difficulty collecting revenue from them.:niceone:

Nobody has collected any 'revenue' from me since 1987 - so I guess I'm letting the team down eh?

I'll leave that sort of 'tax' payment to the muppets out there.....

[Stormer]

What he was getting at was the overzealous enforcement of ridiculously low speed limits with ridiculously low tolerances and often with little common sense being applied regarding the circumstances of the alleged offence/misdemeanour.

Finally.
There it is.
Clear REALITY!!!
Frame it and hang it on yer wall!

speedpro, that`s gotta be the quote of the year, good on ya!!

[marty]

unfortunatley your letter has sunk you. it says 'i'm guilty but please let me off, even though i'm on an L plate not only am i exceeding my 70k speed limit, but i'm also exceeding the posted limit, by 21km/h'

have a look at some basic physics. at 100km/h, you're travelling at 27 metres/second. if your blown off course by 1m, and you take 3 seconds to get back on track, you have travelled around 81m. obviously, at slower speed, you are going to eat less distance (70k = 19m/s). not sure where i'm going with this, but your speed limit on an L plate is there for a reason, so is the speed limit on the bridge. if the wind's too strong for you, take the bus, or the long way home.

[swbarnett]

How so? I know that the cost of each road death to society is estimated at some 1 million dollars or something, what are the costs of reducing that?
The cost of reducing the toll from 400 to 350 will be less than reducing it from 350 to 300 which will be less than that of reducing it from 300 to 250.
It's the law of diminishing returns for each extra number that is to be wiped off the toll a proportionately higher sum must be spent. This is because you will never remove the human element without fully automating the roads (something I and, I'm guessing most people in this forum, would be strongly opposed to).


Thats dramatizing it a wee bit isn't it? I think most people in society recognize the need for a speed limit,
This is part of the problem. People delude themselves into thinking they're safe because other's shouldn't travel over a set limit. The truth is that that limit is no panacea.


some might not like it when they are made to obey it themselves but still see it as a necessary evil
The term "necessary evil" is an oxymoron. If it's evil it's not necessary and should be removed or replaced. The end does not justify the means.


as its unfortunately unworkable to have a graduated speed limit depending on driver skill and conditions.
We have one now. Although I've not seen it applied a lot lately there exists in law the concept of a Limited Speed Zone where you are allowed to do 100kph unless certain conditions exist. And then there is the cop's discretion, I've passed cops doing 70kph in a 50 who obviously thought it was appropriate for the conditions.


I might not like having a 110km speed limit placed on me but I like having it placed on most other road users.
We don't punish people for murders they "might" commit so why punish people on the road for accidents they "might" cause?

[swbarnett]

have a look at some basic physics. at 100km/h, you're travelling at 27 metres/second. if your blown off course by 1m, and you take 3 seconds to get back on track, you have travelled around 81m. obviously, at slower speed, you are going to eat less distance (70k = 19m/s)
But if you're travelling faster you're likely not to be deflected as much.


, but your speed limit on an L plate is there for a reason, so is the speed limit on the bridge. if the wind's too strong for you, take the bus, or the long way home.
When's the last time you rode over the harbour bridge in a strong cross wind? 100kph is better than 80.

[scumdog]

We don't punish people for murders they "might" commit so why punish people on the road for accidents they "might" cause?

I bet if I let loose at ramdon around Riviera of the South with my AK47 the gendarmes would soon jump on me - regardless if I was actually endangering anybody...

[speedpro]

Extreme examples are often used to prove a general point. We've drifted away from the original reason for this thread a bit which seems to be the KB way. The point people are discussing now is the ticketing of vehicles for what seems fairly innocent, harm wise, excursions over the speed limit. The newish part of the Northern Motorway here in AK is at least 2 lanes wide, has huge verges of around 50-80 metres in places, opposing lanes are seperated by distance and barriers, visibility is excellent, traffic at times is minimal(for AK) and yet you would still be foolish to safely and boringly cruise it at say 130kmh on a ZZR1100. Canterbury Plains in places are the same. Isolated, little traffic, excellent visibility, and some cop parked in a shady spot with the radar out, or cruising in the mufti car, handing out tickets for 115kmh. The Southern Motorway down past Meremere is the same. Boringly easy to negotiate, safe as it can be made, and infested with traffic police intent on handing out tickets for some minor speeding offence.

I actually think it may be laziness on the part of the officers. You have to issue a certain number of tickets in a period. What simpler way of achieving it than to hang round a nice safe bit of road and ping people for minor speeding infringements. The other way of looking at that of course is that with the emphasis on ticketing speeding the officers have little time for dealing with the real causes of accidents, even if they did have any idea what they may be which seems doubtful in some cases.

[Matt_TG]

You were doing well till you stated the obvious..


What simpler way of achieving it than to hang round a nice safe bit of road and ping people for minor speeding infringements.

Probably the same reason people fish in channels and around reefs. It pays to go where the punters are. If the road's wide, clear and makes an obvious dragstrip then you'd expect it to be Policed. The Law says you're speeding, the Police are bound by duty to enforce the Law.

[rwh]

The cost of reducing the toll from 400 to 350 will be more than reducing it from 350 to 300 which will be more than that of reducing it from 300 to 250. It's the law of diminishing returns for each extra number that is to be wiped off the toll a proportionately higher sum must be spent.

Um - you've worded that backwards :)

Richard

[swbarnett]

Um - you've worded that backwards :)
OOPS!

Should've been:


The cost of reducing the toll from 400 to 350 will be less than reducing it from 350 to 300 which will be less than that of reducing it from 300 to 250. It's the law of diminishing returns for each extra number that is to be wiped off the toll a proportionately higher sum must be spent.

Thanks Richard.

[Patrick]

....The very concept that I have to pay the price for someone else's bad driving ...

Huh? You pay someone elses speeding tickets? You pay for someone elses failing to give way or stop at reds? Nice....


Finally.
There it is.
Clear REALITY!!!
Frame it and hang it on yer wall!

Aint bad, clear reality and all, but it already exists... it is framed already... those speed limit signs are framed within a red circle.... Rocket science I know but...


... The newish part of the Northern Motorway here in AK is at least 2 lanes wide, has huge verges of around 50-80 metres in places, opposing lanes are seperated by distance and barriers, visibility is excellent, traffic at times is minimal(for AK) and yet you would still be foolish to safely and boringly cruise it at say 130kmh on a ZZR1100. Canterbury Plains in places are the same. Isolated, little traffic, excellent visibility, and some cop parked in a shady spot with the radar out, or cruising in the mufti car, handing out tickets for 115kmh. The Southern Motorway down past Meremere is the same. Boringly easy to negotiate, safe as it can be made, and infested with traffic police intent on handing out tickets for some minor speeding offence....

Everyone knows these hot spots... but still they come along, donating to Helen.... EVERY day......:weird:

[Max Preload]

Everyone knows these hot spots... but still they come along, donating to Helen.... EVERY day......:weird:

I *think* his point was there's no real safety issue, which as we all know is the claimed logic behind not exceeding 100km/h and ticketing those who do. A single red light runner off the road from demerits because they were caught repeatedly by a targeted campaign does much more for road safety than all the tickets issued for speeding in the <+20km/h bracket on roads such as described above, like the Huntly Expressway or virtually any section of the Auckland motorway system, barr maybe the harbour bridge.

[swbarnett]

Huh? You pay someone elses speeding tickets? You pay for someone elses failing to give way or stop at reds? Nice...
Not at all. What I'm getting at is that because some drivers are thought to be unsafe those that are safe but don't conform to the very narrow view of road safety set out in law pay the price.

[speedpro]

I *think* his point was there's no real safety issue,

Thanks for getting it Mr Preload.

It seems there is a determined few who cannot or will not see the reasoning. Probably the same few who because they travel at 100kmh maximum think they are perfectly safe and can therefore relax, and who also believe that anyone exceeding the 100kmh limit no matter the circumstances is either about to kill or about to be killed, like in the ads on TV.

[Patrick]

I *think* his point was there's no real safety issue, which as we all know is the claimed logic behind not exceeding 100km/h and ticketing those who do. A single red light runner off the road from demerits because they were caught repeatedly by a targeted campaign does much more for road safety than all the tickets issued for speeding in the <+20km/h bracket on roads such as described above, like the Huntly Expressway or virtually any section of the Auckland motorway system, barr maybe the harbour bridge.

I got it already...

Red light runners don't get demerits. (Yet...)


It seems there is a determined few who cannot or will not see the reasoning.

Same can be said from this side of the fence... It seems that there is a determined few who can not, or will not see reasoning....

The reasoning is simple. The MAXIMUM speed for EVERYONE is 100kmph.

Travel more than that, there is a tolerance. 111 or more, the snakey speed cameras and radar/laser operators get you and you get a ticket.

So, is it that 100kmph is the max for everyone?

Or does it only apply to a few?

If so, how can you tell which of those out there, where these 100k limits do not apply to, are?

Can they have a bright sticker on their visor or windscreen so the snakes know they are exempt?

Where do I apply for this exemption?

I speed. If I get a ticket, oh well....

If I don't, the cops don't get quota. No quota, no donut.

[Swoop]

1. We are so near to zero already that there is a case to say that we are already there.

2. The cost of any further reductions, if not already there, is getting close to being unsupportable. Both in terms of financial and social costs.
Don't forget that the population is growing, which makes a zero target even harder to achieve.

No quota, no donut.
Speaking of which... (sign at the AK airport...):rofl:

[Max Preload]

Red light runners don't get demerits. (Yet...)

Just further evidence it's nothing to do with road safety but revenue collection. In any case, surely you can trump up a careless driving charge. After all, it's more careless than what I got stopped for the other day, that is talking on my cellphone while turning left into my and giving way to the unmarked but nonetheless blatantly obvious cop car that was turning right into the same street. He tried to tell me I was being careless, yet I did nothing wrong and gave way to him, as was required. Most people turning left don't even give way. Now that's careless... :clap:

[swbarnett]

The reasoning is simple.
It may be simple. That doesn't make it right.


The MAXIMUM speed for EVERYONE is 100kmph.
Under law, yes. Again, this doesn't make it right.


, how can you tell which of those out there, where these 100k limits do not apply to, are?
How about waiting until an accident occurs and then punishing the causative driver, whatever the cause?

[speedpro]

Same can be said from this side of the fence... It seems that there is a determined few who can not, or will not see reasoning....

The reasoning is simple. The MAXIMUM speed for EVERYONE is 100kmph.


I KNOW the limit, whatever it is, applies to everyone apart from certain heavy users and those towing trailers or learners. The rest of your reply isn't worth quoting as it doesn't address anything that has been said in this thread.

Since you brought it up though, why couldn't drivers who pass certain advanced driving skills tests be allowed to travel at some increased speed on the roads. I would suggest that those skills tests should be the required tests for the basic licence but that's another discussion on it's own. We already identify drivers with lesser skills/experiance who are restricted to less than 100 kmh, so why not identify by a similar method those that are deemed capable of travelling at a greater speed?

[Toaster]

How about waiting until an accident occurs and then punishing the causative driver, whatever the cause?

"Accident"? ... every accident as you in your wisdom put it has a reason or number of factors that cause the event - that's why they are called crashes - not accidents. Someone or something (or both) are at fault.

Personally I'd rather the police and other authorities do their very best to prevent such "accidents" being caused by idiots on the road BEFORE THEY OCCUR, as both I and my beloved family would like to know we have the best chance of getting home safe and enjoying our lives thank you very much.

[Toaster]

... but yes it would be nice to have more appropriate speed limits for bikes....

[Max Preload]

Personally I'd rather the police and other authorities do their very best to prevent such "accidents" being caused by idiots on the road BEFORE THEY OCCUR, as both I and my beloved family would like to know we have the best chance of getting home safe and enjoying our lives thank you very much.

So would I. However, simply issuing tickets for exceeding the arbitrary posted speed limit does not do this. Some people are unsafe at any speed. What is really needed is better driver training and weeding out the incompetents. We always hear "it's a priviledge to have a license" so it's about time that was actually the case. Right now any fucktard can get one by performing a few simple tests. We need to raise the bar. A lot.

[scumdog]

It may be simple. That doesn't make it right.


Under law, yes. Again, this doesn't make it right.


How about waiting until an accident occurs and then punishing the causative driver, whatever the cause?

Read a magazine from 1973 last night, the editorial comment went along the lines of "55 miles an hour is ludicrous in this day and age and with the safety of modern cars, the speed limit should be 100kph, it's a nice round figure (How is THAT for logic?- 'my words') and is a more reasonable speed on the open road"

Sound familiar??

Substitute 100kph for 55mph and 120kph for 100kph and it's the same bleating we hear today.

BTW: 55mph is 88kph....for those too young to remember.

[Ixion]

Same can be said from this side of the fence... It seems that there is a determined few who can not, or will not see reasoning....

The reasoning is simple. The MAXIMUM speed for EVERYONE is 100kmph.

Travel more than that, there is a tolerance. 111 or more, the snakey speed cameras and radar/laser operators get you and you get a ticket.

...

I suggets that the great majority realise this. And also expect to get a ticket if they exceed that limit. What they DO object to is the constant nanny lecturing that moderate speeding is a monstrous crime endangering everybody. It is an offence. We all recognise that. So is overparking. If I park my cage too long , I will not be surprised if I get a ticket, nor will I moan (well, not TOO much. Bloody parking nazis). So, likewise if I twist my twistgrip too long I will not be too surprised if I get a ticket, nor will I moan (well, not TOO much. Bloody traffic cops.)

But I would object to a hectoring harnague from a parking waqrden. Likewise, I object to being vilified for travelling at 115kph.

Yes, excessive speed CAN be dangerous. That is why we actually have a specific offence of speed dangerous. Which is seldom (if ever) invoked for less than 150kph.

By implication , lesser naughtiness is no more dangerous, to myself or others than any of the other minor derelictions of daily life.

So cut the ranting and just give me the ticket .And I must say in fairness that the few tickets I have actually received have been delivered in a professional neutral manner. "You wuz doing 115kph. Thaz more than is allowed. Here's y' ticket". Fair enough. Interestingly, I have also been "forgiven" on rather more occasions, but often only after a lecture intimating that I am the greatest social evil since Mr Pol Pot. If I must choose I will take the lecture rather than the ticket, but do not expect me to believe a word of it, no matter how much I may grovel at the time (I have a very nice line in grovel and repentance, I done a course in it. It has stood me in good stead)

[Fatjim]

I bet if I let loose at ramdon around Riviera of the South with my AK47 the gendarmes would soon jump on me - regardless if I was actually endangering anybody...

Thats it, I was wondering what else cops enforce.

1. Speeding
2. Drink driving
3. Unlawful use or possesion of a firearm

Everything else just seems too hard.

[awayatc]

(I have a very nice line in grovel and repentance, I done a course in it. It has stood me in good stead)

Married......?

:scooter:

[MarkH]

What really annoys me is the anti-speeding ads. They show things like a car cornering too fast and losing control crashing off the road or cornering too fast and sliding out into the path of another car, killing some kid's mum.
The reason this annoys me is that there is a contrast with police action on the road were they park a van on the side of the motorway and ping drivers for exceeding 110kph on a long straight road with 3 lanes in each direction separated by a concrete barrier.

WTF has exceeding the posted speed limit got to do with poor judgement of speed to make it around a corner? Surely you can lose control on a corner and kill someone WITHOUT exceeding the speed limit, can't you?
I really think that the ads are used to pull the wool over the eyes of the non-thinking motorists to make them think the 'driving too fast tax' is actually a road safety measure. If it were really a road safety measure then you would see speed cameras in locations were people don't generally speed because it is too dangerous, but when people speed there it is a genuine safety risk. What you actually see is that speed cameras are placed where motorists feel they can safely drive in excess of the limit, thereby pinging large numbers of motorists. You also see cameras placed at the bottom of hills where someone travelling at a normal speed might pick up a few kph and exceed the limit + tolerance.

I could come up with a huge number of examples where the speed camera fixed locations are placed on roads that can safely be driven 20kph above the speed limit and have no schools or whatever near by.
There are also going to be plenty of times when someone is ticketed for travelling at 61kph in a 50kph zone, where the zone gets changed later to a 70kph zone - clearly showing that the 61kph was NOT a dangerous speed - unless of course the places that have their speed zone changed have never had a motorist ticketed for speeding on them. Then there are the roads that they won't change from 50kph because of hazards/traffic volume/pedestrian volume at peak times - but the cops will sit on these roads and easily meet their quota ticketing drivers that can comfortably travel at faster speeds at off-peak times. These roads could have a variable speed limit (50 at peak and as much as 80 offpeak) but that would be a pain to implement and enforce so they just go with the lower speed and let motorists get fines for travelling safely on an empty road.

I have also come across some cops that are complete jerks that will ticket someone for minor technicalities just because they can. Like the one that stopped my mate for going through a stop sign without completely stopping - my mate slowed to below 5kph, nothing was coming so he proceeded, technically against the regulations, but not like he just drove through at full speed. These cops will happily ticket you for a brief moment over the speed limit while passing a slow vehicle, even if it would be more dangerous to overtake slower and spend more time on the wrong side of the road. Of course there are other cops that are much more reasonable - they are not all jerks by any means.

[Xman]

Thats it, I was wondering what else cops enforce.

1. Speeding
2. Drink driving
3. Unlawful use or possesion of a firearm

Everything else just seems too hard.

Other laws are enforced. I suggest that you do a scope ride along shift in Auckland or any other busy center if you believe otherwise.

**Rant removed after thinking better of it.**

[Xman]

...snip...why couldn't drivers who pass certain advanced driving skills tests be allowed to travel at some increased speed on the roads. I would suggest that those skills tests should be the required tests for the basic licence but that's another discussion on it's own. We already identify drivers with lesser skills/experiance who are restricted to less than 100 kmh, so why not identify by a similar method those that are deemed capable of travelling at a greater speed?

Whilst I think you have a fair point, the enforcement of this is not as simple as you seem to indicate. For starters, in a practical sense, how many of those people on restricted or learner licenses get pulled over for speeding at less than the standard limit for whereever they are at the time? I would suggest very few. It is more that they are treated differently if stopped above the standard limit and found to be exceeding their lesser limit by a greater margin. Selectively avoiding pulling over vehicles that have some tag is a much more tricky prospect.
Also, its not like you can instantaniously change the threshold of the speed cameras when someone with their *Fast Driver* card attached passes by.
Lastly, it is unfortunate, but like it or not it is the combined speed that affects outcome in a vehicle collision. Whether the suitably higher qualified driver is at fault or not, in a collision with another vehicle (especially head on) their higher speed will affect the survivability or injuries likely to be sustained in that crash.

[swbarnett]

These roads could have a variable speed limit (50 at peak and as much as 80 offpeak) but that would be a pain to implement and enforce
They do this now with school zones. I don't see why this can't be extrapolated. Except for cost of course.

[swbarnett]

Substitute 100kph for 55mph and 120kph for 100kph and it's the same bleating we hear today.

BTW: 55mph is 88kph....for those too young to remember.
As vehicle handling improves the safe speed for a given type of vehicle on a given piece of road will increase.

I wouldn't like to try a model T at 100kph.

[swbarnett]

Also, its not like you can instantaniously change the threshold of the speed cameras when someone with their *Fast Driver* card attached passes by.
Actually you can. This would be quite simple with the addition of RFIDs (Radio Frequency ID tags) to your driver's license. This would be essentially the same technology used to charge road tolls.

[jaykay]

Me again, been absent for a few days - but it seems this topic has drifted off thread a little.

I don't see why the enforcing authorities shouldn't also have to "follow the law" - a friend has just received what is supposed to be a Reminder Notice about a parking ticket in Auckland (lives here in Christchurch). I say supposed because there are three different dates given for when the payment is due - which one is he supposed to adhere to?

The ticket says it was sent AND served on 22nd August; says it's due 28 days after date of service, (supposed to be 29th August) giving 26th September; when in fact it was served (ie received) on 1st September. Various dates are therefore 19th Sep, 26th Sep, and 28th Sep. In addition the back of the notice, just like the Police one, says he must write within 28 days after service - again, which date is correct? and no mention of it having to be received within 28 days.

Apologies to those ratepayers in Auckland, but I can feel some fun coming on.

To pick up on the orginal topic and the "six month" law. As some of you may have noticed NZ First can't be prosecuted as any iffy donations are more than six months ago. The same is true for motoring offences - the court can only send a Notice of Fine when a Reminder Notice is filed in the court within six months of the alleged offence. (A Notice of Hearing also has to be dated within six months).

Another friend has an offence date of November 2007. A Reminder Notice dated July 2008, and a Notice of Fine dated August 2008. The court appear to have acted outside the law. It will probably be a week or two until there is more news about this, I'll get back here when I can - must go and get some proper work done.

[scumdog]

Since you brought it up though, why couldn't drivers who pass certain advanced driving skills tests be allowed to travel at some increased speed on the roads. I would suggest that those skills tests should be the required tests for the basic licence but that's another discussion on it's own. We already identify drivers with lesser skills/experiance who are restricted to less than 100 kmh, so why not identify by a similar method those that are deemed capable of travelling at a greater speed?

This is a troll....right?

How the effingjeezhell would you identify the suitable driver -and how the hell would you 'police' such a system??

BTW: We only have 'L' motorcyclists who have a lower top speed due to their licence status - about 1.13% or less of road traffic.

[Patrick]

Just further evidence it's nothing to do with road safety but revenue collection.

Note the last word in my post.... Some fines are being reduced with demerits added. Red lights might be one of them. What say you then? Revenue collecting? Pffftttt.....


How about waiting until an accident occurs and then punishing the causative driver, whatever the cause?

High visibility patrolling and ticketing should reduce the crappy driving, one would think. It doesn't...


Since you brought it up though, why couldn't drivers who pass certain advanced driving skills tests be allowed to travel at some increased speed on the roads.

Coz these so called good drivers would still be sharing the roads with crap drivers..... who still won't see ya....


So would I. However, simply issuing tickets for exceeding the arbitrary posted speed limit does not do this. Some people are unsafe at any speed. What is really needed is better driver training and weeding out the incompetents. We always hear "it's a priviledge to have a license" so it's about time that was actually the case. Right now any fucktard can get one by performing a few simple tests. We need to raise the bar. A lot.

Fair call. Been said many a time too. It appears to be in the too hard basket.


..... Like the one that stopped my mate for going through a stop sign without completely stopping - my mate slowed to below 5kph,...

Many people down play ther wrong doings. Could this be another example? Two sides to the story?


To pick up on the orginal topic and the "six month" law. As some of you may have noticed NZ First can't be prosecuted as any iffy donations are more than six months ago.

Depends on what they are looking for and thinking of charging him with. Crimes Act stuff as no statute of limitations for a number of things.

[Slyer]

This is a troll....right?

How the effingjeezhell would you identify the suitable driver -and how the hell would you 'police' such a system??

BTW: We only have 'L' motorcyclists who have a lower top speed due to their licence status - about 1.13% or less of road traffic.
What about trucks and cars with trailers?

[scumdog]

What about trucks and cars with trailers?


Oh yeah, forgot about them, they're so hard to tell apart from the other vehicles eh??

[scumdog]

Just further evidence it's nothing to do with road safety but revenue collection.

And as luck would have it there's a shitload of incompetents who are quite willing to subsidise my non-payment of revenue...:woohoo:

[bomma]

Oh, i live a lot, in fact it makes your wee list seem rather boring, it wasnt personal, i just think when you fuck it up, wether its speeding, or banging into someones car in a car park, you come clean & take it on the chin & dont dissapear & be a burden on your fellow taxpayer or insurance payer, otherwise you become a weasal.

i cudnt be arsed going through 6 pages but

i agree you shouldnt screw over another HUMAN BEING, hit someone's car at a carpark?? leave your number and own up :niceone:

get a speeding fine by a cop who's been sitting on the off-ramp and only thing on his mind has been quotas, and do as much as you can to avoid that fine. my family and myself pay the government more than enough through taxes so they can squander the money on useless bastards skiving off welfare and crappy endeavours that have little benefit to the majority of the population.....i dont condone speeding IN THE CITY but everyone needs their fix, just try not to get caught

onya for pointing out this little loop hole. i will be saving a copy of it and will let all my mates know :2thumbsup

[speedpro]

Note the last word in my post.... Some fines are being reduced with demerits added. Red lights might be one of them. What say you then? Revenue collecting? Pffftttt.....

Coz these so called good drivers would still be sharing the roads with crap drivers..... who still won't see ya....



So the $ fines for "speeding" offences are being reduced and demerits added? I would have thought I would have noticed the news article about that.

So are you implying that by driving at some mandated lesser speed than what I and others are advocating we will be less invisible? The last paragraph quoted above tells me that you know what the problem is - "crap drivers". It doesn't matter the speed. A crap driver is a crap driver and is more likely to cause mayhem whether they are travelling at the legal limit or not.

I have never seen any statistics analysed that showed speed to be a major contributor to crashes, unless the analysis was done by the LTSA or similar with a politically inspired barrow to push. Said analysis was typically seriously flawed, with the desired result. There is no doubt and no argument that in the event of a crash that speed is a major factor in the seriousness. What is always conveniantly ignored in statistical analysis of crash data over the years versus any causes of trends, is that there have been major road works on the main highways. Whole sections of difficult roads have been by-passed, median barriers such as cheese cutters have been installed, the age of the vehicle fleet has reduced with all sorts of safety improvements, all of which has contributed to a decline in the worst statistics. I wonder though if the actual number of crashes per vehicle distance travelled has decreased which to me is a true indicator of whether the "CAUSE" of the crashes is being addressed. I think not.

[MarkH]

Many people down play ther wrong doings. Could this be another example? Two sides to the story?

I was sitting in the passenger seat beside my mate, you can believe my account, or not - whatever.

T-intersection - we can turn left or right. Approach intersection in the left lane, indicating to turn left, my mate slows down to almost a stop. The only traffic that we could possibly have to give way to is the traffic driving straight through from the right - at the slow speed we are doing it is clear that the road is empty, no cars or bikes coming. My mate proceeds through the intersection and a police officer pulls us over and explains that we did not completely stop at the stop sign. There was no suggestion of anything dangerous, only the technicality of the regulations which say you must come to a complete stop.

Could you really be trying to suggest that you are dubious that a cop might be a jerk and try ticketing someone that is driving safely, but infringes on a small technicality? Are you happy to believe that jerks occur in all walks of life, except in the police force?

[Max Preload]

Fair call. Been said many a time too. It appears to be in the too hard basket.

Or perhaps the "would lose too many votes" basket...

[Patrick]

So the $ fines for "speeding" offences are being reduced and demerits added? I would have thought I would have noticed the news article about that.

Hell no... too many willing donators to the Helen fund for that to happen...

So are you implying that by driving at some mandated lesser speed than what I and others are advocating we will be less invisible?

No... but do you really want to drive faster when there are plenty out there who can't drive for shit, but they have al icence that says they can? These same ones who simply say, "I didn't see you...???"

The last paragraph quoted above tells me that you know what the problem is - "crap drivers". It doesn't matter the speed. A crap driver is a crap driver and is more likely to cause mayhem whether they are travelling at the legal limit or not.

Yes, but it is worse when at speed....

I have never seen any statistics analysed that showed speed to be a major contributor to crashes, unless the analysis was done by the LTSA or similar with a politically inspired barrow to push. Said analysis was typically seriously flawed, with the desired result. There is no doubt and no argument that in the event of a crash that speed is a major factor in the seriousness. What is always conveniantly ignored in statistical analysis of crash data over the years versus any causes of trends, is that there have been major road works on the main highways. Whole sections of difficult roads have been by-passed, median barriers such as cheese cutters have been installed, the age of the vehicle fleet has reduced with all sorts of safety improvements, all of which has contributed to a decline in the worst statistics. I wonder though if the actual number of crashes per vehicle distance travelled has decreased which to me is a true indicator of whether the "CAUSE" of the crashes is being addressed. I think not.

Stats can be manipulated apparently... depends on what one wants to see. They are right if you like what you see but terribly wrong if it is not. Yep, speed certainly is a major factor in the seriousness of a crash. Not a lot of brain splatter to pick up in a headon at 100k. Different when faster......


I was sitting in the passenger seat beside my mate, you can believe my account, or not - whatever.

Doesn't matter what I believe, I wasn't there.....

T-intersection - we can turn left or right. Approach intersection in the left lane, indicating to turn left, my mate slows down to almost a stop. The only traffic that we could possibly have to give way to is the traffic driving straight through from the right - at the slow speed we are doing it is clear that the road is empty, no cars or bikes coming. My mate proceeds through the intersection and a police officer pulls us over and explains that we did not completely stop at the stop sign. There was no suggestion of anything dangerous, only the technicality of the regulations which say you must come to a complete stop.

Not just the regulations, it is also in the road code. Everyone else stops, why couldn't he?

You are familiar with why a stop sign is in a particular place? There would have been a large number of crashes, including fatals, at that intersection, because people "thought" the way was clear, when it actually wasn't. Stopping gives one the chance to have a proper "look" - something many punters do not do at intersections. Hence the stop sign, which means stop, apparently.

Could you really be trying to suggest that you are dubious that a cop might be a jerk and try ticketing someone that is driving safely, but infringes on a small technicality? Are you happy to believe that jerks occur in all walks of life, except in the police force?

Nothing technical in stopping. You did, or you didn't. Simple.

I know there are jerks in the Police - Your mate got a ticket because he didn't stop at a stop sign. Get over it. He got unlucky with the cop at the time. Not all would bother with that scenario, but most would stop to check licence, WOF, rego and alcohol, because why else would one not stop?


Or perhaps the "would lose too many votes" basket...

Hahahahaha.. On to it.... But if it was an all party concience vote....

[MarkH]

because why else would one not stop?

How about because there were no vehicles to give way to and it was safe to proceed through the intersection? Like I said in my original post - my friend slowed down to less than 5kph (it may have been somewhere around 2kph, he almost did completely stop).

I am well aware that the rules state that the car must come to a complete stop - but in this case obeying the rules would only be done for the sake of obeying the rules, not for any safety reasons (I am not a fan of being so busy following the rules that I have no time for common sense). I would think that a cop would ignore someone that slowed down to almost stopped for the same reason that a cop would ignore a car travelling at 103kph in a 100 zone (either way is infringing on the rules - but you know, a little leeway helps to not piss off the motorists that the cops prefer to be on their side). My friend remained calm (unusual for him) and polite at all times and I was very surprised when the cop pulled out his ticket book to write up the offence.

Why some cops choose to act in such a way that the general public gets the impression that they are either trying to fill a quota or are just arseholes is a big mystery to me. Why can't all cops try to act fair and decent at all times?

To be honest I am also less than impressed with your attitude - you seem to suggest that if someone doesn't stop at a stop sign then they deserve a ticket, maybe even if they slow down to 1kph and drive carefully and safely through the empty intersection. I believe the term for that sort of person is 'pedantic arsehole'. Of course someone that drives through a stop sign at a higher, obviously dangerous speed deserves to be ticketed - but someone driving safely, but not technically coming to a complete stop is not the same thing.


Get over it.

What are you on about? I am not upset over this - I wasn't even the driver, there is nothing for me to get over. I simply provided an example of where a cop was being a pedantic dick and pulled over someone that was driving very safely (actually a little unusual for my mate). Can't I give an opinion on a forum without someone thinking that I am angry about some minor matter that happened to a friend several years ago? Maybe you need to get over yourself Patrick! :bleh:

[swbarnett]

because why else would one not stop?
Maybe because it was not necessary to do so in order to safely proceed through the intersection? Is not the rule in place in the name of "safety"?

If you're still safe then you've fulfilled your obligation under the spirit of the law.

[Matt_TG]

It's not the spirit of the law, or even the 'vibe', it's the law. If you haven't stopped you haven't fufilled your obligation to stop. If the sign said "STOP - but if you can move forward safely then go ahead" it'd be a different story.

[swbarnett]

It's not the spirit of the law, or even the 'vibe', it's the law. If you haven't stopped you haven't fufilled your obligation to stop. If the sign said "STOP - but if you can move forward safely then go ahead" it'd be a different story.
I wasn't trying to argue what the law says. What I was trying to get at is that within any fair and just society the spirit or principle behind the law must be taken into account before a ticket is dished out. A society that is bound completely by the letter of the law is ruled by an institution that has lost all it's humanity.

[Patrick]

How about because there were no vehicles to give way to and it was safe to proceed through the intersection? Like I said in my original post - my friend slowed down to less than 5kph (it may have been somewhere around 2kph, he almost did completely stop).

I merely ask, why didn't he then? Re read my post on why stop signs are there. They are there for a reason, as I outlined. Too many people thought the way was clear so it was OK to go, when it wasn't. Maybe it was all good in your friends case, but how is it so many before him got it so wrong, so that a stop sign had to be put into place..???

I am well aware that the rules state that the car must come to a complete stop - but in this case obeying the rules would only be done for the sake of obeying the rules, not for any safety reasons (I am not a fan of being so busy following the rules that I have no time for common sense). I would think that a cop would ignore someone that slowed down to almost stopped for the same reason that a cop would ignore a car travelling at 103kph in a 100 zone (either way is infringing on the rules - but you know, a little leeway helps to not piss off the motorists that the cops prefer to be on their side). My friend remained calm (unusual for him) and polite at all times and I was very surprised when the cop pulled out his ticket book to write up the offence.

Fair enough. Some (most, probably) will ignore it, as he made a good attempt... some don't. He lost the toss of the coin there.... Was there anyone behind him (your mate or the cop car) who saw it and would demand something be done about it, the same sort of person that would complain if he didn't? Was there someone in the cop car telling him to do it, like training perhaps? Who knows.

Why some cops choose to act in such a way that the general public gets the impression that they are either trying to fill a quota or are just arseholes is a big mystery to me.

So... only the two options ay? You missed one other reason... doing their job perhaps?

Why can't all cops try to act fair and decent at all times?

Because some cops are arses and anal about how they do their job, like so many professions.....

Rules are rules. Some follow them, some choose not to. Some will enforce to the letter, some don't....

To be honest I am also less than impressed with your attitude - you seem to suggest that if someone doesn't stop at a stop sign then they deserve a ticket, maybe even if they slow down to 1kph and drive carefully and safely through the empty intersection. I believe the term for that sort of person is 'pedantic arsehole'. Of course someone that drives through a stop sign at a higher, obviously dangerous speed deserves to be ticketed - but someone driving safely, but not technically coming to a complete stop is not the same thing.

Be as honest as you like... you do not know me. You do not know of my attitude - but since you are on the attack.....

Nowhere did I say everyone should get a ticket. My threshold was around 20-30kmph or more. I would not have put my donut down in your mates case....

As stated earlier, some will ticket some won't. The circumstances you describe are fine by me, but what if other factors were present (Like a pedantic arsehole boss in the car with him, other members of the public seeing this happen and the cop left with no option other than to "just do it." for fear of some idjit complaining about him/her not doing their job, perhaps???)

What are you on about? I am not upset over this - I wasn't even the driver, there is nothing for me to get over. I simply provided an example of where a cop was being a pedantic dick and pulled over someone that was driving very safely (actually a little unusual for my mate). Can't I give an opinion on a forum without someone thinking that I am angry about some minor matter that happened to a friend several years ago? Maybe you need to get over yourself Patrick! :bleh:

You seemed upset over it. Perhaps I misred your post...

Perhaps the cop knew of your mates car and of his usual driving manner...

You are most welcome to your opinion, I was just pointing out things you possibly hadn't thought of.

[speedpro]

I have been thinking about STOP signs a bit lately because of a slight change in my driving patterns and new intersections I now must cross. It seems that the STOP sign is often more relevant to the cars turning right, for obvious reasons. Cars turning left only have to check one lane for traffic which most people you would hope could do without having to come to a complete stop. Problem is that the sign applies to all vehicles. Just-about-stopped might not be good enough depending on the cop and the reputation of the driver involved and MarkH has hinted at a possible issue with his mates driving and manner, though not in this case this time. Unfortunately if you do get a ticket in this sort of situation you just have to suck it up because that's the rules.

[Max Preload]

I have been thinking about STOP signs a bit lately because of a slight change in my driving patterns and new intersections I now must cross. It seems that the STOP sign is often more relevant to the cars turning right, for obvious reasons. Cars turning left only have to check one lane for traffic which most people you would hope could do without having to come to a complete stop. Problem is that the sign applies to all vehicles. Just-about-stopped might not be good enough depending on the cop and the reputation of the driver involved and MarkH has hinted at a possible issue with his mates driving and manner, though not in this case this time. Unfortunately if you do get a ticket in this sort of situation you just have to suck it up because that's the rules.

I'm in complete agreement. Once we raise the standard of driving required to obtain a license in the first place, turning left on a STOP could be treated as a GIVE WAY. Almost every day I have to come to a complete stop at a STOP sign turning left at a T-junction and most of the time if I didn't have to completely stop I could easily and safely pull into the gap but because of the compulsory stop I almost always miss it. And this is in the car, before anyone heckles me...

[Max Preload]

To pick up on the orginal topic and the "six month" law. As some of you may have noticed NZ First can't be prosecuted as any iffy donations are more than six months ago. The same is true for motoring offences - the court can only send a Notice of Fine when a Reminder Notice is filed in the court within six months of the alleged offence. (A Notice of Hearing also has to be dated within six months).

The difference being that you receive an infringement notice when you're allegedly caught doing something wrong. In Winnies case, as long as he's not caught in the 6 months, he's home and hosed.

[Horse]

Read a magazine from 1973 last night, the editorial comment went along the lines of "55 miles an hour is ludicrous in this day and age and with the safety of modern cars, the speed limit should be 100kph, it's a nice round figure (How is THAT for logic?- 'my words') and is a more reasonable speed on the open road"

Sound familiar??

Substitute 100kph for 55mph and 120kph for 100kph and it's the same bleating we hear today.

Which underlines the point that speed limits are essentially arbitrary.

If 100km/h is safer than 115km/h, then surely 90km/h is safer than 100km/h? So why isn't the speed limit 90km/h?

But by the same argument 80km/h must surely be safer than 90km/h? etc etc.

[Patrick]

Which underlines the point that speed limits are essentially arbitrary.

If 100km/h is safer than 115km/h, then surely 90km/h is safer than 100km/h? So why isn't the speed limit 90km/h?

But by the same argument 80km/h must surely be safer than 90km/h? etc etc.

It is, of course. 0kmph is totally safe... but you need something set as a speed limit to get somewhere...

100 is a nice round figure. If it was 90, 80 whatever, there would still be moaning about it. Same goes if it was 120... moaners will go on about how it should be 140....

It is what it is. Subject to change, as it has done in the past... of course...

[vgcspares]

I really struggle with the concept of taking an "it's a fair cop" attitude when it comes to speed limits.
Bureaucrats dream up the laws, politicians pass them off and cops apply them as suits their mood.
In principal speed limits are there to maintain order, but what they actually do is restrict experience and diminish the skill set of drivers. They're set at what is deemed safe for car drivers and consequently they'll come down as skills plummit further, so they're there to be ignored.
It's a fair cop, what nonsense !

[Patrick]

Huh???

They came down once - the 70s oil crisis...

The crap drivers were around then, there are more now. And some want higher limits???? That is the part I don't get....

[MarkH]

Huh???

They came down once - the 70s oil crisis...

The crap drivers were around then, there are more now. And some want higher limits???? That is the part I don't get....

To be honest, I don't really mind the 100kph limit. I would like to see more tolerance given on some roads where it isn't dangerous to travel at 120, but overall the 100kph + 10kph tolerance allows a reasonable driving speed. I remember when it was 80kph and changed to 100kph - it made it much easier to drive within the law.

[swbarnett]

0kmph is totally safe...
There's no such thing as totally safe.

0kph isn't safe if you're standing beside an unstable cliff. Then there's meteors ...

[Winston001]

Which underlines the point that speed limits are essentially arbitrary.

If 100km/h is safer than 115km/h, then surely 90km/h is safer than 100km/h? So why isn't the speed limit 90km/h?

But by the same argument 80km/h must surely be safer than 90km/h? etc etc.

No, the speed limit isn't arbitrary. Rather, it is a function of road engineering. We have a long, narrow, mountainous country with a small economy. Building roads is expensive for us. So the best compromise between having good but modest roads everywhere is to limit the way they are built. In fact the design speed for many of our roads is 80kph which is why there is constant work straightening corners, taking out dips etc to try to catch up with real world speeds.

I do think we could move to 110k nationally, and 120k on designated roads such as motorways.

The downside is the jump in energy use which will cost us plenty individually and as a nation.

[Jantar]

No, the speed limit isn't arbitrary. Rather, it is a function of road engineering. .......
I do think we could move to 110k nationally, and 120k on designated roads such as motorways. ....
Great. When the Clyde dam was built, the new road to Cromwell was designed as future proof, and has a design speed of 140 kmh. :clap:

[swbarnett]

The downside is the jump in energy use which will cost us plenty individually and as a nation.
Aren't most vehicles designed to be most fuel efficient at 120kph?

[Kickaha]

Great. When the Clyde dam was built, the new road to Cromwell was designed as future proof, and has a design speed of 140 kmh. :clap:

Having just ridden it for the first time last weekend at speeds not far off that I can well believe it