NZ Police public image

[James Deuce]

I'll add to my previous answer... partly because you have pushed my button. You are by the way you talk, telling me that I am bagging the police... you also are I take it suggesting that I don't really have that right. On both accounts you prove yourself to be one of those who want to gag the public. Your world it seems would have no criticism of authority... because athority is always right. Your see through your rose tinted glasses a police force that is above criticism, above question and above reproach. You see a NZ police force that is efficient and trustworthy... but if you even cared to face the facts that you obviously don't give a sh*t about, you would see a rapidly increasing percentage of the public who are losing faith in the police. That, my dear boy is a concern to me and if you opened your tightly closed eyes and ears would be clear to you as well.

That aint "bagging" the police mate... thats just telling it like it is and being concerned enough to comment.

Ahh oops. You obviously think I give a damn.

I'll go back to my continuing thread in this particular thread.

It's a motorcycle forum. We're here to talk and enjoy bikes, including Police people who ride them.

You're just sucking the joy out of it for a large number of people.

Go whinge in the right forum. You know. Write letters to your MP.

Oh, and by the way, everything in life is a privilege. No one has any rights. To demand rights is to loudly proclaim your disregard for every other person you share this country with. Individual rights are a Post Modern construct and allow whingers to bang on about how terrible their life is, without being told to shut up.

If you wanted to have a discussion about Police policy and how we go about constructively changing it, fine. You didn't. You attacked people because of their career, irrespective of their "rights" not to have to listen to people with NO idea bitching about things that they refuse to do anything constructive about. Except whinge on the Internet web forum thingy. Yeah that'll change things. :niceone:

I'm also heartily sick of your incessant whiney demands that people prove that they are changing things to suit your interpretation of how things should work. You've presented no compelling argument, no facts, and no diplomacy. Just opinion, hyperbole, and a good dose of media brain washing. Why should I give a damn about what you think I should think?

[scumdog]

You wouldn't believe the half of it.
Most of us live in constant fear of the knock on the door.

Me too mate: staggers to the back door half asleep 'cos just got to bed from night shift to find some local slack-jawed mouth breather standing there with a dog-eared ticket in his hand saying "I know you're not on duty (do tell, I suppose the camo nightshirt gave THAT away) but I wonder if you can tell me how I can get off this ticket 'cos I can't afford to lose my licence"? produces ticket that was issued three weeks ago for 121kph on a road about 40km from here and issued by some HP bloke I've never met!!!!! :mad:

Arghhh!!!

See, we ALL fear knocks on the door.

P.S. Yeah, Not the best part of my job to do an 'Informing'. :no:

[idb]

P.S. Yeah, Not the best part of my job to do an 'Informing'. :no:
Wassat?910

[scumdog]

Wassat?910

When you inform somebody their beloved won't be coming home.

[idb]

When you inform somebody their beloved won't be coming home.
I can see that wouldn't be good at all. :no:

[Lou Girardin]

The speed was 113 as I recall, which is out of context in a discussion about licence snatching offences. Did the guy prove that he didn't speed or did he simply create reasonable doubt? As I've said before I won't ticket anyone unless I'm 110% certain of the offence and the offender. If this cop had lower standards than that at the time of this incident then hopefully he has raised them accordingly.

Apparently the court felt that he proved he wasn't speeding, ergo the cop was wrong. The worry is, how often does this happen? Most people do not have GPS sustems to prove the charges wrong.

[Lou Girardin]

You did? I didn't notice so don't worry about it.



By that measure Police shouldn't be inflicting any instant punishments on anyone. Including taking people into custody, impounding racing cars, suspending the licenses of drunk drivers etc.

The law incorporates instant punishments to stop people from continuing to commit what it considers dangerous offences immediately. Its basically aimed to stop these people committing the same offences until they can be brought before the court. You would'nt really want a system whereby every recidivist drunk driver was allowed to keep on driving until a court appearence some 10 months down the track.

You have missed the point. The Police have had powers to deal with all these issues prior. If the speed is dangerous or he's a repeat drink/driver, arrest the him. If the car is unsafe, write it off the road etc.
These people are being punished without charges being proved.

[scumdog]

Apparently the court felt that he proved he wasn't speeding, ergo the cop was wrong. The worry is, how often does this happen? Most people do not have GPS sustems to prove the charges wrong.

C'mon Lou, that one is dead, stop chasing your tail/trolling - or are you just trying to raise your posting count as well as this old red herring?????

It is deceased, it is no more, it has ceased to exist, it has shuffled off its mortal coil, it is an ex-parrot.

[Lou Girardin]

Its dangerous to travel at high speeds. Thats why laws were passed to deal with the worst offenders quickly and efficiently. Retaining your drivers licence is your responsibility.

If it's dangerous, why is that charge not used?
The Chinese also have a very quick and efficient system of punishment applied upon conviction for many offences. (Used to be a bullet, now it's lethal injection). No messy appeal process and there's no comeback from the offender if they were innocent either.
would you like this in NZ?

[scumdog]

If it's dangerous, why is that charge not used?
The Chinese also have a very quick and efficient system of punishment applied upon conviction for many offences. (Used to be a bullet, now it's lethal injection). No messy appeal process and there's no comeback from the offender if they were innocent either.
would you like this in NZ?

It would be an accepted sad fact of life, - kinda like all the road deaths in NZ
(despite the fact the majority are preventable and involve too much velocity for the occassion.) :msn-wink:

[Lou Girardin]

So normal law surely doesn't apply here - it's a bit like a bouncer at a night club. If he doesn't like the look of you he can stop you getting in with no explanation. You have no rights of entry, it is private property.
.

'Normal' law is what saves your arse from all manner of Government harassment.
Dilute it at your peril.
Try studying some basic human rights, trial by a jury of your peers, protection against double jeopardy (which they're also trying to dilute). Even the right to a speedy trial

[scumdog]

Even the right to a speedy trial

Is that the one where you try to defend a speeding ticket??? :D :laugh:

[Lou Girardin]

C'mon Lou, that one is dead, stop chasing your tail/trolling - or are you just trying to raise your posting count as well as this old red herring?????

It is deceased, it is no more, it has ceased to exist, it has shuffled off its mortal coil, it is an ex-parrot.

Well, Spud attempted it CPR, so I gave it another kicking.

[Lou Girardin]

Is that the one where you try to defend a speeding ticket??? :D :laugh:

You're a sharp one today, been eating razor blades?

[scumdog]

You're a sharp one today, been eating razor blades?

Na, Just off night-shift, you should see me when I AM sharp!!

[Biff]

The Chinese also have a very quick and efficient system of punishment applied upon conviction for many offences. (Used to be a bullet, now it's lethal injection).

Did you know the Chinese have actually gone mobile with this concept?
There are now vans that patrol the cities and administer the lethal injections 'on the hoof'. Very organised these Chinese. You don't even get a chance to post on a web site whinging. The locals refer to these vans as (roughly translated), "Meat wagons". Nice. Except of course that nobody talks about them. Especially to foreigners. Oh no. Because they don't exist really. It's Amnesty International and their followers making it all up. Because China is a beacon to all nations. And they're hosting the Olympics next year. So they must be decent chaps then. (I am being sarcastic here. Murdering bastards).

[Lou Girardin]

Na, Just off night-shift, you should see me when I AM sharp!!

Well go to bloody bed then, stop annoying all us cop-haters. : :innocent:

[Ixion]

Oh, and by the way, everything in life is a privilege. No one has any rights. To demand rights is to loudly proclaim your disregard for every other person you share this country with. Individual rights are a Post Modern construct and allow whingers to bang on about how terrible their life is, without being told to shut up.

An interesting social theory, though one too bleak and cruel for my endorsement.However the underlying context of the discussion was the law, not Libertarian (or NeoCon or Anarchist or whatever 'ism it is ) philosophy. And the Law certainly does recognise rights, and people do have rights under the law. And have had for a long time before Post Modernism. And a good few our our
forbears were willing to die to ensure that those rights were respected.

"To none shall we deny right or justice" predates Post Modernism by something near a thousand years. And was only articulating what was considered well established law at the time.

[idb]

'Normal' law is what saves your arse from all manner of Government harassment.
Dilute it at your peril.
Try studying some basic human rights, trial by a jury of your peers, protection against double jeopardy (which they're also trying to dilute). Even the right to a speedy trial
Don't snip out of context.
The point of the post was that the act of licencing might imply that the issuer of the licence can impose any rules that he might see fit, hence the apparent legality of roadside licence suspensions.
If you look back though you'll see that if that is the case, I can't see how the impounding of vehicles could be legal.
This was intended to be a point of discussion from one who has never studied law.
Your guidance would certainly be appreciated.

[James Deuce]

An interesting social theory, though one too bleak and cruel for my endorsement.However the underlying context of the discussion was the law, not Libertarian (or NeoCon or Anarchist or whatever 'ism it is ) philosophy. And the Law certainly does recognise rights, and people do have rights under the law. And have had for a long time before Post Modernism. And a good few our our
forbears were willing to die to ensure that those rights were respected.

"To none shall we deny right or justice" predates Post Modernism by something near a thousand years. And was only articulating what was considered well established law at the time.
All I ask is for this thread to die, and go away, and be replaced by something that resembles debate, not a schoolyard bullying session.

I can see that that is starting, but no doubt Mr Drummer will be back and will completely destroy any sense of moderation or sensible to and fro.

I don't accept that the intent of the Magna Carta was to give individual rights to everyone, but rather it was to provide landowners with a voice in a Constitutional Monarchy. It is only within the the last 300 years that the Westminster Parliamentary system allowed ALL Men (sorry ladies) and not just the landed Gentry to vote. Individual rights are not a given in a democracy, nor any form of government, and the concept of the "little people" being involved in Government is only something that started to become a documented reality at the start of the Enlightenment. The archaic intent of laws guaranteeing "rights" is very different to the modern interpretation. Richard the Lionheart for instance did not by any means support equality or rights for every person under his jurisdiction. He invented the pogrom unfortunately for English Jews. It could be argued that Prince John did far more to usher the framework for participatory government than any subsequent regent or monarch.

The thing that really annoys me about this thread is that because I have apparently opposed Drummer's "right" to constantly and consistently give fellow bikers a hard time based on their career, I am apparently an evil neo-conservative, with a concious bias toward National Socialist principles. But this isn't the place to discuss my desire to implement a world-wide Benevolent Dictatorship.

I just wanna ride my bike and talk shit about it. I don't think anyone on this site should be held hostage because of any trait, job, ethnic background, religious view, or outspoken belief. But the Police on here keep getting put in a position of having to actively defend their livelihood. It can't be a healthy or happy time for them to sit here reading stuff about how crap they are as human beings, policemen and women, and government employees.

We should start a drummer joke thread and see how long Mr Drummer keeps his temper.

[Kickaha]

When you inform somebody their beloved won't be coming home.

Done something along those lines very recently and I hope it's a long time before I have to do it again :no:

[Indoo]

You have missed the point. The Police have had powers to deal with all these issues prior. If the speed is dangerous or he's a repeat drink/driver, arrest the him. If the car is unsafe, write it off the road etc.
These people are being punished without charges being proved.

Im sure you know that to charge someone with dangerous driving he has to prove an immediate risk to those around him, not a potential one. Ie someone driving at 110kmh in a 50kmh zone, 800 metres before a busy intersection cannot be charged with dangerous driving.

The way the law works is that everyone has a right to defend the charges and in the case of extreme speed/drink driving this won't be until some 8-10 months down the track. Thats why the law imposes instant penalties, to protect the public from those who breach the law in the extreme, whether through extreme speed or alcohol consumption.

I am kinda suprised however that your suggesting that every biker who has gone 150kmh plus on a deserted straight road be arrested, spend some time in a cell and his bike left there to rott/be stolen. That would probably leave at least half this site with criminal records.

[Lou Girardin]

Im sure you know that to charge someone with dangerous driving he has to prove an immediate risk to those around him, not a potential one. Ie someone driving at 110kmh in a 50kmh zone, 800 metres before a busy intersection cannot be charged with dangerous driving.

The way the law works is that everyone has a right to defend the charges and in the case of extreme speed/drink driving this won't be until some 8-10 months down the track. Thats why the law imposes instant penalties, to protect the public from those who breach the law in the extreme, whether through extreme speed or alcohol consumption.

I am kinda suprised however that your suggesting that every biker who has gone 150kmh plus on a deserted straight road be arrested, spend some time in a cell and his bike left there to rott/be stolen. That would probably leave at least half this site with criminal records.

Wrong wrong wrong. 110 km/h in a 50 zone, with busy intersections, houses, driveways is a dead cert for speed dangerous. I never lost one.
I didn't suggest any such thing. read my post, I said that if the offence is dangerous, the offender should be charged accordingly. Not being subject to a punishment without a conviction.
At the moment if you do 151 km/h on your deserted road your bike could well be left there to rott (sic) or be stolen.

[Ixion]

..The way the law works is that everyone has a right to defend the charges and in the case of extreme speed/drink driving this won't be until some 8-10 months down the track. Thats why the law imposes instant penalties, to protect the public from those who breach the law in the extreme, whether through extreme speed or alcohol consumption.
...

Here is the whole prblem in a nutshell. Until a court finds him guilty (or he pleads guilty) you can't say he has breached the law. You may *allege* he has done so , but only a court can find him guilty. And if the court does subsequently say he's not guilty, you can't reverse the instant penalty. The whole presumption of innocent until proven guilty is overturned. He is guilty because you (hypothetical you, the cop doing the stop) say he is.

In most cases the guilt is probably pretty clear - radar says 160kph, breath thingy says whatever over limit is . Hard to argue with those. But some may be less clear cut. You (hypothetical you again) say "sustained loss of traction" . He says "No, slippery road and steep hill, only for a few seconds, that's not sustained". And the judge agrees. Or you say "85 in a 30kph temporary speed zone" He says "there were no signs". And it is found that he is right.

So it possible for there to be dispute, for someone accused of one of these offences to be found not guilty. But, even though the *court* says he's not guilty, the cop has already found him guilty and enforced the penalty. Which cannot be reversed. That's unjust and wrong. It's not your fault, it's the fault of bad law. But it's still wrong. I (hypothetically) did nothing wrong. The courts agreed that I didn't. But I still got punished (for doing nothing wrong) just as if I had been guilty. So what meaning is there is the court finding me not guilty. This law has, in fact, taken away my right to defend the charges. Because even if I do defend them and win, I am still punished.

[Ixion]

This is going to get awfully long, and not really appropriate to this forum . However :


All I ask is for this thread to die, and go away, and be replaced by something that resembles debate, not a schoolyard bullying session.

I can see that that is starting, but no doubt Mr Drummer will be back and will completely destroy any sense of moderation or sensible to and fro.

I don't accept that the intent of the Magna Carta was to give individual rights to everyone, but rather it was to provide landowners with a voice in a Constitutional Monarchy.
Magna Carta didn't *give* anyone rights. It was a statement of what the barons and burgesses considered their existing rights to be. Some of those rights were to the benefit of the barons (the concept of ownership of land at this stage was meaningless; land was held by feudal tenure). But others were for the benefit of the burgesses, and some (and not the least important) affected everyone, even the villeins.

(38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.

+ (39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

+ (40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

Therein is the kernal of all our liberty. And is was granted to all free men (Lord Bracton's axiom applies - in the original Latin , what is translated as men meant "persons") . It didn't really give anyone a "voice" in anything - representation was 200 years in the future, and Constitutional Monarchy was an invention of the C19.


It is only within the the last 300 years that the Westminster Parliamentary system allowed ALL Men (sorry ladies) and not just the landed Gentry to vote.

Actually universal male suffrage was not in force until C20, 100 years or less ago.


Individual rights are not a given in a democracy, nor any form of government, and the concept of the "little people" being involved in Government is only something that started to become a documented reality at the start of the Enlightenment. The archaic intent of laws guaranteeing "rights" is very different to the modern interpretation. Richard the Lionheart for instance did not by any means support equality or rights for every person under his jurisdiction. He invented the pogrom unfortunately for English Jews. It could be argued that Prince John did far more to usher the framework for participatory government than any subsequent regent or monarch.

The notion of "little people" being involved in government would actually have been more familar to a late mediaval person than to one from the "Enlightenment". Burgess tenure , which gave a vote for Parliament (once Parliament existed), was often held by people of low wealth and social position. And in many parts of England copyhold (poor working farmers who didn't own their own land) was considered to entitle to vote. Unfortunately, by and large, once the vote became useful (around C16, C17) the "little people" promptly sold their franchise (directly, or by accepting bribes).So soon they had none (and in much of Europe of the "Enlightenment" nor did anyone else. The "Enlightment was the age of absolute rule)

Neither Coeur de Lion, nor any other English King guaranteed or even imagined "equal rights". The law has never had the slightest interest in "equal rights" That rather nonsensical notion is wholly the invention of modern times and polemicists, not of lawyers.

What the law *does* say, and has since time immemorial, is that if you have a "right" (and in law this means a right of ownership, ie you own something, or a right of franchise, ie a right to do something), then you should not be deprived of that (ie have your right or property taken off you); firstly, without due process (ie a court says that you ought not to have it); and secondly that if you are deprived of your right/property without dereliction on your part, you should be entitled to compensation.

Were this not so, there would be nothing whatsoever to stop me taking your house, your bike, whatever, and refusing to give them back.

And part of due process is that a right (or property) should only be forcibly seized by the Crown if it can be shown that it is for the public good.

There is nothing in this about equal rights. The law indeed envisages that rights will usually be very unequal. I have a right to drive a bike on the highway (because I have complied with certain requirements) He does not. What the law does say is that if I have a right (eg to ride my bike, a licence) that right should not be taken away without due process of law. And then only if it be shown that taking it away is necessary for the common good (eg I have shown by my behaviour that I am a public danger when riding my bike)


The thing that really annoys me about this thread is that because I have apparently opposed Drummer's "right" to constantly and consistently give fellow bikers a hard time based on their career, I am apparently an evil neo-conservative, with a concious bias toward National Socialist principles. But this isn't the place to discuss my desire to implement a world-wide Benevolent Dictatorship.

I don't think anyone (certainly not I) considers you (or anyone else on this site) an "evil" anything. I'm not sure if you are a Neo-conservative, mainly because I'm not certain what they are. I know that I am certainly a very conservative person myself. If you are, I don't see that that is anything to be ashamed of. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, in politics as in all else.


I just wanna ride my bike and talk shit about it. I don't think anyone on this site should be held hostage because of any trait, job, ethnic background, religious view, or outspoken belief. But the Police on here keep getting put in a position of having to actively defend their livelihood. It can't be a healthy or happy time for them to sit here reading stuff about how crap they are as human beings, policemen and women, and government employees.

We should start a drummer joke thread and see how long Mr Drummer keeps his temper.
I agree with you in deprecating the tendency to ad hominem argument. And hopefully those involved in this thread (as in all others) will take that point on board.

But I don't think that BY AND LARGE the recent posters have actually set out to attack the police members personally. They have expressed dissatisfaction with the law; and with the strategy of the police force. The police members will (usually) defend the force (they are proud of it, other coppers are their team mates) and will often take a position about the logicality or justification of the law itself that is more defensive than some posters. That is as one would expect.

And I agree that in some cases tempers have become somewhat aroused , and things have been said that ought not to have been. On both sides, because Mr Spudchuka, at least, is certainly capable of giving as good as he gets. (I suspect that Mr Spudchucka actually quite likes a good argument)

But the fundamental tenor of the argument has been disagreement with the law, or its interpretation and enforcement generally, dissatisfaction with the police force as an abstract entity. That may be upsetting to the police members (no-one likes their chosen occupation being called in question). But it is not the same as personal attacks. The only ones that I have seen of those are the ones by Mr WINJA and Mr Mikey.

Some other threads have had postings dealing harshly with mechanics and repairers. And some have taken IT and helpdesk people to task. But in general that has not been regarded as a personal attack on the wrenches or geeks of the site.

Is this the longest ever KB posting? If not, I do NOT want to see the record holder!

[James Deuce]

Yes I'm a stupid, unresearched neo-conservative.

I promise never to post again. I am obviously completely wrong.

[spudchucka]

If it's dangerous, why is that charge not used?
The Chinese also have a very quick and efficient system of punishment applied upon conviction for many offences. (Used to be a bullet, now it's lethal injection). No messy appeal process and there's no comeback from the offender if they were innocent either.
would you like this in NZ?
In many cases they do lay a dangerous charge, in others its just a TON for exceeding 100 or 50 dependant on the circumstances. The 28 day licence suspension is the Govt's way of saying "you are a dangerous prick and the public don't want you sharing the road with them".

The Chinese would send the offender's family a bill for the bullet too!

[spudchucka]

You have missed the point. The Police have had powers to deal with all these issues prior. If the speed is dangerous or he's a repeat drink/driver, arrest the him. If the car is unsafe, write it off the road etc.
These people are being punished without charges being proved.
How would arresting someone for dangerous speed prevent them from going out and doing it again? They get released on bail, they possess a drivers licence and a vehicle until the matter is dealt with at Court, (probably 12 months down the track). A 28 day suspension is a proactive measure to keep dangerous drivers off the road.

[spudchucka]

What? hang on... you just said that you don't always slow down for roadworks... so an offence happens. Are you saying therefore that descretion doesn't exist..? Are you saying that YOU would be fined everytime in that situation if caught?
You really just read whatever you want into a post it seems. Discretion exists and is used quite liberally in my experience. If I'm caught speeding in any circumstances then it is up to the cop whether or not he or she will write me a ticket.

[spudchucka]

what is YOUR criteria for deciding descretion... do you have hard and fast rules... are you likely to act different if you have just had a hard time with the missus?
Search the forum. I've explained this many times before and I can't be fucked doing it again for your benefit.

[spudchucka]

Fair enough, but I often wonder when I read stuff like this, is it possible to be > 100%?

I mean I can understand when prices go up 110%, but how can a fixed quantity be greater than 100%. "No you can't have 110% of that cake - there will be none left for your brother"!

My failure rate in dating is 100%. It would be a pretty sad outlook if it got to 110%. I probably wouldn't even talk to myself any more....
Basically no ticket gets written unless there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the offence has happened and I have apprehended the actual offender for that offence. If I have any doubt at all then I won't write that person a ticket and very likely won't even stop them.

[scumdog]

Basically no ticket gets written unless there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the offence has happened and I have apprehended the actual offender for that offence. If I have any doubt at all then I won't write that person a ticket and very likely won't even stop them.

My attitude excactly, I have no doubt, no 'maybe' or 'looks like him' when the ticket book comes out.
I have at times stopped cars I 'know' and have had reports from locals about the way it is being driven and have a 'friendly' word to them, often works and if they carry on like dicks? well they can't say they weren't warned.

[Lou Girardin]

In many cases they do lay a dangerous charge, in others its just a TON for exceeding 100 or 50 dependant on the circumstances. The 28 day licence suspension is the Govt's way of saying "you are a dangerous prick and the public don't want you sharing the road with them".

The Chinese would send the offender's family a bill for the bullet too!

Geez Spud, IF IT"S DANGEROUS, THEN BLOODY CHARGE THEM WITH IT. It's pointless to keep referring to a non-existant danger. The reality is that it's behaviour modification through fear. Except that it's not working, not in terms of fewer road deaths nor from the way it encourages people to run.

But not for the lethal injection apparently. That's on them.

[scumdog]

Geez Spud, IF IT"S DANGEROUS, THEN BLOODY CHARGE THEM WITH IT. It's pointless to keep referring to a non-existant danger. The reality is that it's behaviour modification through fear. Except that it's not working, not in terms of fewer road deaths nor from the way it encourages people to run.

But not for the lethal injection apparently. That's on them.

O.K., now we're talking!! New Idea: a reward for those speeding etc so as to discourage them from doing runners and make them stop sooner and to recuce road deaths. "O.K. sir, thank you for stopping so promptly, here's your chocolate fish, best you eat it now before I throw your sorry arse in the slammer and some other low-life steals it from you" .
It's called behaviour modification through reward.

I say dispense with all speeding tickets or any other offence where no particular person was in danger!!

When everybody asks about it say (Bart Simpson voice) 'Don't have a cow man, Lou said it's O.K."

My counter troll troll.

[Ixion]

Would you not agree though that it is , at best, odd that if charged with dangerous driving but NOT exceeding the speed limit (is this possible ? or is dangerous driving only for speeding. Seems damn silly if it is ) , I do not suffer instant licence loss, impoundment. Even though by definition my driving is claimed to be dangerous .But if charged with exceeding the speed limit, but NOT arrested for dangerous driving, I do have my licence and bike pulled. Because I'm dangerous. Even though I haven't been charged with that.

So if I'm charged with dangerous driving, my driving isn't considered dangerous enough to put me off the road. But if I'm NOT charged with dangerous driving, my driving is considered dangerous enough to put me off the road.

Someone explain the logic of that to me.

[idb]

...the ...ownership of ...property ...should only be ...by the Crown ...I ...think ...
Aha, so your real agenda reveals itself.
You're a commy!!!!

[Ixion]

Aha, so your real agenda reveals itself.
You're a commy!!!!

Yes, I am actually

[Lou Girardin]

O.K., now we're talking!! New Idea: a reward for those speeding etc so as to discourage them from doing runners and make them stop sooner and to recuce road deaths. "O.K. sir, thank you for stopping so promptly, here's your chocolate fish, best you eat it now before I throw your sorry arse in the slammer and some other low-life steals it from you" .
It's called behaviour modification through reward.

I say dispense with all speeding tickets or any other offence where no particular person was in danger!!

When everybody asks about it say (Bart Simpson voice) 'Don't have a cow man, Lou said it's O.K."

My counter troll troll.

You got it, a discount for stopping. Make this man Commissioner.
(He'd have to do well, look at what he'd replace)

[Lou Girardin]

Would you not agree though that it is , at best, odd that if charged with dangerous driving but NOT exceeding the speed limit (is this possible ? or is dangerous driving only for speeding. Seems damn silly if it is ) , I do not suffer instant licence loss, impoundment. Even though by definition my driving is claimed to be dangerous .But if charged with exceeding the speed limit, but NOT arrested for dangerous driving, I do have my licence and bike pulled. Because I'm dangerous. Even though I haven't been charged with that.

So if I'm charged with dangerous driving, my driving isn't considered dangerous enough to put me off the road. But if I'm NOT charged with dangerous driving, my driving is considered dangerous enough to put me off the road.

Someone explain the logic of that to me.

That's kind of right, I'm just not sure if the cops arrest offenders for dangerous everytime or not.
And, yes you can be charged with dangerous driving and not exceed the speed limit.

[Jamezo]

Aha, so your real agenda reveals itself.
You're a commy!!!!

ah, sweet ROFFLEness


Yes, I am actually

ok! though you describe yourself as quite conservative? waaaah!

[Ixion]

ah, sweet ROFFLEness



ok! though you describe yourself as quite conservative? waaaah!
Yes. I am a conservative , monarchist communist.

[drummer]

Ahh oops. You obviously think I give a damn.No.... but you are proving me wrong by keeping replying.

[spudchucka]

Geez Spud, IF IT"S DANGEROUS, THEN BLOODY CHARGE THEM WITH IT. It's pointless to keep referring to a non-existant danger. The reality is that it's behaviour modification through fear. Except that it's not working, not in terms of fewer road deaths nor from the way it encourages people to run.

But not for the lethal injection apparently. That's on them.
Thats a lame arguement Lou, I'm not biting.

[drummer]

Well.... the report is out on the 111 fiasco and looks as though what i said about it has been found true.

Come on Jimmy boy... bite

[spudchucka]

Its old news;

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=11958

get with the programme!

[placidfemme]

I havn't read through all the previous 87 pages of replies on this topic. But I'll give my opinion anyway...

I think the cops here in NZ do a good job MOST of the time, but sadly not all the time. But for those of you who have travelled outside of NZ you'll know how good your law system is. I have bucket loads of respect for the cops out busting criminals... but NO respect for traffic cops at all.

I got pulled over by a cop on a bike earlier this year on the Northern Motorway. I came off the Onewa Road on-ramp and changed into the second lane, before I changed lanes I saw the cop sitting on the side of the motorway and remember trying to figure out what kind of bike he was riding (BMW I think?), and what the cc rating would be for it, I changed lanes, and next thing theres lights in my mirrors (couldn't hear the siren over my pipe), and I was thinking "man what did I do?" So I changed back to the first lane, and pulled over just before getting onto the bridge.

He asked to see my license, checked all my details and then lectured me for more than 5 minutes on road manners and changing lanes and the restrictions on my learners license... I sat quietly and nodded and agreed to everything he said (what else could I do?).

Then he starts lecturing me about changing lanes dangerously and erratically... and acts like he's doing me the biggest favour in the world by not giving me a fine... and then tops it off with "but I won't because I couldn't actually see as the traffic was blocking my view, so I'm not sure if you indicated or not"

WELL WHY DID YOU PULL ME OVER THEN??!!!!???????!!!!!!!

I'm assuming he was bored, and saw the L plate and thought "easy target". Thats just one reason out of about a million why traffic cops suck in my books...

hmm... yeah so thats my 2 cents worth..

[idb]

I havn't read through all the previous 87 pages of replies on this topic. But I'll give my opinion anyway...

I think the cops here in NZ do a good job MOST of the time, but sadly not all the time. But for those of you who have travelled outside of NZ you'll know how good your law system is. I have bucket loads of respect for the cops out busting criminals... but NO respect for traffic cops at all.

I got pulled over by a cop on a bike earlier this year on the Northern Motorway. I came off the Onewa Road on-ramp and changed into the second lane, before I changed lanes I saw the cop sitting on the side of the motorway and remember trying to figure out what kind of bike he was riding (BMW I think?), and what the cc rating would be for it, I changed lanes, and next thing theres lights in my mirrors (couldn't hear the siren over my pipe), and I was thinking "man what did I do?" So I changed back to the first lane, and pulled over just before getting onto the bridge.

He asked to see my license, checked all my details and then lectured me for more than 5 minutes on road manners and changing lanes and the restrictions on my learners license... I sat quietly and nodded and agreed to everything he said (what else could I do?).

Then he starts lecturing me about changing lanes dangerously and erratically... and acts like he's doing me the biggest favour in the world by not giving me a fine... and then tops it off with "but I won't because I couldn't actually see as the traffic was blocking my view, so I'm not sure if you indicated or not"

WELL WHY DID YOU PULL ME OVER THEN??!!!!???????!!!!!!!

I'm assuming he was bored, and saw the L plate and thought "easy target". Thats just one reason out of about a million why traffic cops suck in my books...

hmm... yeah so thats my 2 cents worth..

Worser was when, ooohhh I don't know, about 15-20 years ago, the traffic enforcement agency in Invercargill (I don't remember whether they were City Council, MOT or Police then) were pulling folks over and giving them chocolate fish, or balloons or hugs or something (my memory is hazy about anything over three hours ago) as a "well done" when they apprehended them doing something good like indicating or avoiding a pedestrian.....
You'd have to laugh wouldn't you?

[Brian d marge]

What the hell I ll rub it in ...

I can speed you cant ....We have police that dont do anything ..its great ..nothing nudda nought never seen them on the road //unless stuck in traffic on the other side
Why only today I was at least 30 km over the limit ..with not a care in the world ....
( atually I do tell a lie walking back from work last nite I saw the local policeman ..70 m from his seat ( I counted ) talking to a disgruntled parking space owner about a green nissan march that was parked in his space .....SO they Do something ...i think

Sorry but its revenue grabbing to pay for ..ummmmm something ..

Oh its good to be in the land of the free ..........

Sorry
couldnt resist ,,,,,,but you really should bring it up with your mp ....write a letter ..pen paper ...its even free post to wellington
you can steal the paper and envelope from work .........

Stephen

now running for cover :drinknsin :drinknsin :Pokey:

[spudchucka]

Thats a real post 2:00Am post!

Sorry Stephen but I can't figure out what your point actually is.

[Brian d marge]

Sorry but its revenue grabbing to pay for ..ummmmm something ..

Oh its good to be in the land of the free ..........

Sorry
couldnt resist ,,,,,,but you really should bring it up with your mp ....write a letter ..pen paper ...its even free post to wellington
you can steal the paper and envelope from work .........

crikey was it 2 am ....

All this talk about the police ....I do think its revenue grabbing possibly due to under funding ,,,As I live in a place where you almost NEVER see the police ......if you call em they come REAL quick other than that ...You just dont see them ...
On the other hand I was delighted to read that the police in NZ are sending letters to the top 20 percent of criminals telling them that there will be policeman camped on their door ......Now that was a good bit of reading Hope that works out
Finally In noticed how much traffic this thread generated ,,,and if all these relpys were letters on a certain mps floor ...I think they would/may think about acting ....1400 votes is a powerful tool
The postage to wellington is free So all u need is pen and paper ...( stolen from the courthouse / or a reused infringement envelope :devil2:

But it does stand out when I come home for a holiday on a straight road that went on for miles ...the old man sat at 100 to 120 ( the alarm went off ...David slow down ,,,its me who ,,blahhh)
On the motorway here most sit at 120 ...but some come past at 140 easily ....
As for driver education here in Japan ... I did see a poster in a motorway service aera toilet saying speed kills .....

Me personally I think its the rugby /Racing and Beer culture that needs to be addressed ..thats the problem ....as in look how much of a tough man I am I can drive fast like Greg Murphy .....and other problems ,,Ch CH on a friday nite....

Stephen ( who has had coffee so the above may be readable ( maybe ) :drinknsin.

[Lou Girardin]

Sorry but its revenue grabbing to pay for ..ummmmm something ..

Oh its good to be in the land of the free ..........

Sorry
couldnt resist ,,,,,,but you really should bring it up with your mp ....write a letter ..pen paper ...its even free post to wellington
you can steal the paper and envelope from work .........

crikey was it 2 am ....

All this talk about the police ....I do think its revenue grabbing possibly due to under funding ,,,As I live in a place where you almost NEVER see the police ......if you call em they come REAL quick other than that ...You just dont see them ...
On the other hand I was delighted to read that the police in NZ are sending letters to the top 20 percent of criminals telling them that there will be policeman camped on their door ......Now that was a good bit of reading Hope that works out
Finally In noticed how much traffic this thread generated ,,,and if all these relpys were letters on a certain mps floor ...I think they would/may think about acting ....1400 votes is a powerful tool
The postage to wellington is free So all u need is pen and paper ...( stolen from the courthouse / or a reused infringement envelope :devil2:

But it does stand out when I come home for a holiday on a straight road that went on for miles ...the old man sat at 100 to 120 ( the alarm went off ...David slow down ,,,its me who ,,blahhh)
On the motorway here most sit at 120 ...but some come past at 140 easily ....
As for driver education here in Japan ... I did see a poster in a motorway service aera toilet saying speed kills .....

Me personally I think its the rugby /Racing and Beer culture that needs to be addressed ..thats the problem ....as in look how much of a tough man I am I can drive fast like Greg Murphy .....and other problems ,,Ch CH on a friday nite....

Stephen ( who has had coffee so the above may be readable ( maybe ) :drinknsin.

You're probably not wrong. It's the mindless aggression that's built into our culture with it's focus on thugby as a religion and 'staunch' as a philosophy for life.

[inlinefour]

ACT leader Rodney Hide has released tapes of police and the rescue centre bungling a response to save the lives of two fishermen after their fishing vessel capsized.

He blames police for failing to arrange a helicopter in time when the Iron Maiden capsized off the Northland coast in August last year.

Mr Hide says police "mucked around" the Rescue Coordination Centre for two hours despite being asked to dispatch a helicopter within 13 minutes of the mayday call from the boat.

He says in the end, police handed the operation over to the RCC, telling the centre they did not have the resources.

[Lou Girardin]

Saw this too. Another Pleece spooksman refusing to admit that they could be the teensiest, weensiest bit wrong. It was everyone elses fault apparently.
Shame people died.

[Pixie]

Saw this too. Another Pleece spooksman refusing to admit that they could be the teensiest, weensiest bit wrong. It was everyone elses fault apparently.
Shame people died.
Levymalone Lou ,they went through a modern education system ,where no matter how bad you fuck up,you are not a failure-Just differently successful. :rofl:

[drummer]

Levymalone Lou ,they went through a modern education system ,where no matter how bad you fuck up,you are not a failure-Just differently successful. :rofl:man o man thats the truth. I teach music in primary schools amongst other things and actively stand against this pathetic Pc culture... blame everyone else... they're to blame!!

[inlinefour]

man o man thats the truth. I teach music in primary schools amongst other things and actively stand against this pathetic Pc culture... blame everyone else... they're to blame!!

Pity that they did not teach them to take responsibility for their own actions... :mad:

[idb]

Gee, I'm glad I'm no longer a deckhand...

Whaddaya mean...some people think you're still a total deckhand....... :Pokey: :laugh:

[NC]

Whaddaya mean...some people think you're still a total deckhand....... :Pokey: :laugh:
:oi-grr: :weird:

[inlinefour]

Whaddaya mean...some people think you're still a total deckhand....... :Pokey: :laugh:

But I suspect that they don't want to be honest on account of being in the ward that I work in :weird:

[idb]

:oi-grr: :weird:
:slap: :o :whistle:

[Pixie]

Someone's got a sense of humour ,but I don't think it's Robinson

[Rainbow Wizard]

I was breath tested on Thursday night. I'd had about 4 wines and a meal and was telling a friend about the post here that extolls the virtue of riding a deserted roundabout to practise getting one's knee down. I did a demo as a I was talking, but I confess I was in my Mitsi L400 van at the time!

Turns out I was sprung by a security guard via radio and the feds were promptly on the case. I wasn't too concerned because even if I failed a breath test I was confident a blood test would be under. Anyway, the prick says "That''s a fail".
"OK" I say, "what happens now, a blood test?" to which the cop replies
"No, that's a failed reading. ....(pregnant pause 1)....... It failed to register....(pregnant pause 2)......... you're under".

Friggin power tripper, clearly shows a complete lack of goodwill and the pervasion of malice. And they wonder why their rep's so bad. The dickheads only need to look at their modus opperandi to understand why that is.

I have since heard many reports of cops exclaiming after a breath test that registers under what they can bust us for "That's a failed youth".
Why friggin bother.
I rest my case.

[igor]

I was breath tested on Thursday night. I'd had about 4 wines and a meal and was telling a friend about the post here that extolls the virtue of riding a deserted roundabout to practise getting one's knee down. I did a demo as a I was talking, but I confess I was in my Mitsi L400 van at the time!

Turns out I was sprung by a security guard via radio and the feds were promptly on the case. I wasn't too concerned because even if I failed a breath test I was confident a blood test would be under. Anyway, the prick says "That''s a fail".
"OK" I say, "what happens now, a blood test?" to which the cop replies
"No, that's a failed reading. It failed to register....(pregnant pause)......... you're under".

Friggin power tripper, clearly shows a complete lack of goodwill and the pervasion of malice. And they wonder why their rep's so bad. The dickheads only need to look at their modus opperandi to understand why that is.

I have since heard many reports of cops exclaiming after a breath test that registers under what they can bust us for "That's a failed youth".
Why friggin bother.
I rest my case.

ya whole family will be killed by a drink driver and u left as a quadraplegic and then maybe u will have a different view u dumb asshole

[Two Smoker]

Well i havnt read all of this, due to it being quite nasty at the start... But what i have read is "whinge, whinge,whinge.... cry, cry, cry..... I want my mummy"

HARDEN THE FUCK UP!!! They are all there (the Police) to do a job. As Humans they are prone to make mistakes...

You cant moan about a speeding ticket (although getting done for 111kmh in a 100 zone is a bit petty) or getting breathalised (how does the cop know that you arent a drunk driver?) or anything like that...

To put it into context: I am currently in a court case where i have been charged for Riding in a dangerous manner, and failing to stop for red and blue flashing lights. Even though to be charged for this was because i went 130odd kmh around a corner because i like getting my knee down and failing to ever see the police car, my attitude towards the police, or the police officer that charged me, hasnt changed. I still appreciate the hard work they do, and the tough job they have.

Yes i speed, and yes im prepared for the fines, Yes my old man knows i speed and he is a police officer. Thats why i choose when and where i do my speeding. Even though i speed, i do not consider myself reckless or dangerous. But if i got caught doing 150kmh then thats ok, i was speeding, i cough up the dollars.

And with the issue some cops letting you "off" a speeding ticket and others not... Cops aren't robots, they arent all programed to do the same as everyone else.

[Enn]

wow what a doozie; to help or not to help,good cop, bad cop to stop or not to stop, take yer medicine,good rep, bad rep, spud gun, real one, and a good dose of legislation, mix and stir add a bit of 'puter eyes dried syndrome,sprinkle with short term memory loss and you end up here....... :rofl: Personaly i think the police do a bloody good job and think that it would be a really crap place without them, we would still be in mud huts with a big fence around waiting for the udder fellas to come and pinch the girls and the cold fat and raisin sandwiches... just goes to show that "humans' arent that smart.... mmmm now wheres thet fat'n rasin sammie... :rofl: :drinkup:

[marty]

funny thing is, when people are speeding/drinking a little bit, smoking a joint, then driving etc, many people on here beleive a little of that is ok. if that same person though, was involved in a crash, and they had had a beer, or a smoke, or were doing 120km/h on the open road with only one other car about, and that car had you or your family in it, you'd want them hung. if they drove right by, it'd be ok.

[Jantar]

ya whole family will be killed by a drink driver and u left as a quadraplegic and then maybe u will have a different view u dumb asshole

Igor, RW was not complaining about being stopped and breath tested, he was complaing about the cop's attitude. I too have been the victim of this type of police humour, and I assure you it is not funny to be told you have a failed breath test when you know you aren't over the limit.

Perhaps you can explain how the cop who makes this type of comment is helping to prevent, as you put it, "ya whole family will be killed by a drink driver and u left as a quadraplegic".

[spudchucka]

funny thing is, when people are speeding/drinking a little bit, smoking a joint, then driving etc, many people on here beleive a little of that is ok. if that same person though, was involved in a crash, and they had had a beer, or a smoke, or were doing 120km/h on the open road with only one other car about, and that car had you or your family in it, you'd want them hung. if they drove right by, it'd be ok.
The idiots all want policing to be on their terms. It doesn't and can't work that way.

Policing is a job where there will always be a sector of the community who actively winge about anything the police do simply because thats their mentality.

They raise hell about the guy who cuts them off in traffic, but if caught doing the same thing the cops are picking on them.

They moan if they see a cop travelling at speed to a job but winge if they take more than five minutes to get to them when they call 111.

They think getting assaulted is part of a cops job description but if the cop strikes back its called police brutality.

They wouldn't dream of telling a dentist how to pull a tooth, or a doctor how to take out their appendix, but they are always willing to give cops a few pointers on law enforcement.

Constructive critiscism is one thing, (and its welcome) but the wingers can go suck a fart out of their own arseholes for all I care.

[WINJA]

The idiots all want policing to be on their terms. It doesn't and can't work that way.

Policing is a job where there will always be a sector of the community who actively winge about anything the police do simply because thats their mentality.

They raise hell about the guy who cuts them off in traffic, but if caught doing the same thing the cops are picking on them.

They moan if they see a cop travelling at speed to a job but winge if they take more than five minutes to get to them when they call 111.

They think getting assaulted is part of a cops job description but if the cop strikes back its called police brutality.

They wouldn't dream of telling a dentist how to pull a tooth, or a doctor how to take out their appendix, but they are always willing to give cops a few pointers on law enforcement.

Constructive critiscism is one thing, (and its welcome) but the wingers can go suck a fart out of their own arseholes for all I care.
THATS A SHIT ATTITUDE FOR A POORLY PAID PUBLIC SERVANT, IF YOU WANT AN EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE DOING A BAD JOB IN THE FORCE JUST LOOK AT STU KEARNS , WHAT A CUNT

[Rainbow Wizard]

Igor, RW was not complaining about being stopped and breath tested, he was complaing about the cop's attitude.
And it's damn easy to see why their image is so bad when we so often encounter such jerk-off power-tripping attitudes that seem to pervade the force like a cancer. I hope there's some friggin top-end plod reading this forum and that they do something about correcting such attrocious behaviour. I not complaining about the job they do but I am highly critical of some of their attitudes. They get what they deserve.

[Rainbow Wizard]

We have a mate who's recouperating from totalling a brand new R6 a few weeks ago whilst on a test ride! OK, OK, not really his fault it seems as a truck was turning onto the road in an area of double yellow lines, out of view on the other side of a crest. OUCH. Wrote the R6 off.

EDIT
Low down on the R6 lay down is that some dipwit police supervisor (not the cop who attended the scene, he's cool) wants to bust our mate for careless use of a motor vehicle. I ask you? How the hell does he think he's gonna make that one stick! Seems he thinks that because the R6 didn't stop before hitting the truck that the rider is guilty of failing to ride according to the conditions.

1) He can't prove the separation between the vehicles at the time the truck commenced crossing the highway.
2) The truck driver said he didn't see the bike until it was too late.
3) The rider couldn't have anticipated the trucks manoevre because he didn't have any distant view of the truck, the crest of the road concealed it from view.

Typical agro cop attitude that gives them the bad rep that is so prolific these days.

[Indoo]

I was breath tested on Thursday night. I'd had about 4 wines and a meal .

For many people that amount of alcohol would put them close to, if not over the limit. It certainly would severly impair your judgement and driving ability on the roads.



I have since heard many reports of cops exclaiming after a breath test that registers under what they can bust us for "That's a failed youth".
Why friggin bother.
I rest my case.

Maybe to inform that person that they should watch how much they drink in future, for all the cop knows this person is just a teaspoon of alcohol short of failing the general test. Ive seen what drunk drivers do and i have no sympathy for people who get there precious little nose outa joint when a cop gives them a shake up. You should'nt consume any alcohol and drive, let alone enuff to fail the youth limit.

[Pixie]

Igor, RW was not complaining about being stopped and breath tested, he was complaing about the cop's attitude. I too have been the victim of this type of police humour, and I assure you it is not funny to be told you have a failed breath test when you know you aren't over the limit.

Perhaps you can explain how the cop who makes this type of comment is helping to prevent, as you put it, "ya whole family will be killed by a drink driver and u left as a quadraplegic".
Turn the tables.
Look intently at the cop's cheek and say that the mole on his cheek(if he has one)looks just like the one that your mum had that had turned cancerous and that he would be wise to get it checked by his GP. :rofl:

[Rainbow Wizard]

For many people that amount of alcohol would put them close to, if not over the limit. It certainly would severly impair your judgement and driving ability on the roads.
You're missing one ingredient here, the fact that the first wine was started at 8:00, the last one was finished at 11:15, the meal was in between. Intoxicated I was not, impaired I was not, judgement I had exhibited, misrepresentation was the cop's choice and for that he loses cred.

[spudchucka]

We have a mate who's recouperating from totalling a brand new R6 a few weeks ago whilst on a test ride! OK, OK, not really his fault it seems as a truck was turning onto the road in an area of double yellow lines, out of view on the other side of a crest. OUCH. Wrote the R6 off.

EDIT
Low down on the R6 lay down is that some dipwit police supervisor (not the cop who attended the scene, he's cool) wants to bust our mate for careless use of a motor vehicle. I ask you? How the hell does he think he's gonna make that one stick! Seems he thinks that because the R6 didn't stop before hitting the truck that the rider is guilty of failing to ride according to the conditions.

1) He can't prove the separation between the vehicles at the time the truck commenced crossing the highway.
2) The truck driver said he didn't see the bike until it was too late.
3) The rider couldn't have anticipated the trucks manoevre because he didn't have any distant view of the truck, the crest of the road concealed it from view.

Friggin wanker cop, typical areshole that gives them the bad rep that is so prolific these days.

Careless is easy to prove.

Point three will see your mate screwed. Not to mention this little fact, "because the R6 didn't stop before hitting the truck that the rider is guilty of failing to ride according to the conditions".

Oh, and charging people when offences are committed, thats what cops do. So I guess that is typical of them and perhaps the cop is an arsehole and a wanker but if doing their job as they should be is contributing to bad rep then I guess they should just stop charging people when offences are committed and sit around reading "How to win friends and influence people". Then when people crash their nice new R6's we could just give them a chocolate fish, give them a hug and tell them to be a bit more carefull next time.

[Ixion]

..
3) The rider couldn't have anticipated the trucks manoevre because he didn't have any distant view of the truck, the crest of the road concealed it from view.
..

Not wanting to start a flame war or anything, and my commiserations to your mate. But I think that failing has to be the most common driving fault in NZ. If you can't see over the top of the hill , then SLOW DOWN. It's just the same as a blind corner.

For once, the Road Code is both clear and sensible. Ensure you can stop within the clear space of road visible ahead. If there's a hill crest in the way assume SomethingBad is over the crest.

Gives me the shits when I see cars and bikes flying over blind crests at speed. You can never know what's going to be on the other side.

[Rainbow Wizard]

Careless is easy to prove.
"because the R6 didn't stop before hitting the truck the rider is guilty of failing to ride according to the conditions".

Oh, and charging people when offences are committed, thats what cops do. So I guess that is typical of them and perhaps the cop is an arsehole and a wanker but if doing their job as they should be is contributing to bad rep then I guess they should just stop charging people when offences are committed and sit around reading "How to win friends and influence people".
So you're going along the road, clear view as much as the road permits, someone pulls out onto the road immediately in front of you and you hit them and YOU'RE the careless one! :weird:
If they can't define or prove the distance between the two vehicles when the turn was commenced and that it was equal to or exceeded the distance necessary to stop at that speed then they cannot prove careless use. They are wasting their time and our money.

Iam not suggesting people should not be charged with offences but I am saying that the cops should be on solid ground and not fantasies when and if they do so.

[spudchucka]

So you're going along the road, clear view as much as the road permits, someone pulls out onto the road immediately in front of you and you hit them and YOU'RE the careless one! :weird:
So in your mates case he is approaching a blind crest. He can't see the truck pulling out and the truck driver can't see him either. Even though your mate has a clear view, as much as the road permits, he comes over the crest of the hill and can't stop short of the truck, crashing into the back of it.

A prudent driver would have slowed down and taken enough care to ensure that if another vehicle had just pulled out onto the road on the other side of the hill then he or she would be able to stop short and avoid a collision. Assuming that the road is clear is careless and in your mates case he crashed as a result of his carelessness.

[Ixion]

So in your mates case he is approaching a blind crest. He can't see the truck pulling out and the truck driver can't see him either. Even though your mate has a clear view, as much as the road permits, he comes over the crest of the hill and can't stop short of the truck, crashing into the back of it.

A prudent driver would have slowed down and taken enough care to ensure that if another vehicle had just pulled out onto the road on the other side of the hill then he or she would be able to stop short and avoid a collision. Assuming that the road is clear is careless and in your mates case he crashed as a result of his carelessness.


Gotta say Mr Spudchucka is right. It's the single worst fault of NZ drivers/bikers. Assuming that the road will be clear on the other side of the hill. We have a lot of blind crests , and too often I've found SomethingNasty on the other side. Zooming over a crest at such speed that you can't stop WITHIN THE CLEAR VISIBLE road (which may not be very much road until you're over the crest) is careless.

You just have to SLOW DOWN. Once you're over the hill and can see what's on the other side, you can speed up again (assuming it's safe to do so of course). But until you can see the other side you have to slow down until you can stop in the distance you CAN see.

If the road doesn't "permit" much of a view, well, that's all you've got. Make sure you can stop within it.

Sometime I help matters along by standing up to get an advance look.

[scumdog]

THATS A SHIT ATTITUDE FOR A POORLY PAID PUBLIC SERVANT, IF YOU WANT AN EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE DOING A BAD JOB IN THE FORCE JUST LOOK AT STU KEARNS , WHAT A CUNT

We're only paid to do the job, - if you want a good attitude as well? - that's extra!! :rofl:

[Rainbow Wizard]

Gotta say Mr Spudchucka is right. It's the single worst fault of NZ drivers/bikers. Assuming that the road will be clear on the other side of the hill....If the road doesn't "permit" much of a view....Make sure you can stop within it.
Gets me to wondering about cornering also, where all the time we drive in anticipation of the road being free of obstacles.

Maybe I've just highlighted another opportunity for the pollies and federali to tax us. Next they'll be planting orange cones just around the tight LH corners and if we don't stop before we hit 'em then we'll be charged with careless use! :mad:

Much more profitable than a simple speeding ticket eh!
http://www.voxanclubdefrance.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/new_color_.gif

[spudchucka]

Gets me to wondering about cornering also, where all the time we drive in anticipation of the road being free of obstacles.

Maybe I've just highlighted another opportunity for the pollies and federali to tax us. Next they'll be planting orange cones just around the tight LH corners and if we don't stop before we hit 'em then we'll be charged with careless use! :mad:

Much more profitable than a simple speeding ticket eh!
http://www.voxanclubdefrance.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/new_color_.gif
Not profitable at all by the time you take into account the Court processes and all the wages of court and police staff. The miserable $130 you will end up paying in costs is f*&K all in comparison.

And yes, if you come fanging it around a tight LH corner and you crash off after hitting a road cone then you could be charged with careless use.

Bottom line is that you should be anticipating and identifying potential hazards and driving appropriately. If you fail to do this and you crash then you have used a motor vehicle carelessy. End of story.

[Ixion]

Not profitable at all by the time you take into account the Court processes and all the wages of court and police staff. The miserable $130 you will end up paying in costs is f*&K all in comparison.

And yes, if you come fanging it around a tight LH corner and you crash off after hitting a road cone then you could be charged with careless use.

Bottom line is that you should be anticipating and identifying potential hazards and driving appropriately. If you fail to do this and you crash then you have used a motor vehicle carelessy. End of story.

Quite reasonably, since the cone could just as easily be a cow, a broken down truck, or a small child who has wandered off whilst her parents picnic by the roadside.

[Lou Girardin]

THATS A SHIT ATTITUDE FOR A POORLY PAID PUBLIC SERVANT, IF YOU WANT AN EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE DOING A BAD JOB IN THE FORCE JUST LOOK AT STU KEARNS , WHAT A CUNT

At least he's consistant. Was the same in the MOT

[Lou Girardin]

Careless is easy to prove.

Point three will see your mate screwed. Not to mention this little fact, "because the R6 didn't stop before hitting the truck that the rider is guilty of failing to ride according to the conditions".

Oh, and charging people when offences are committed, thats what cops do. So I guess that is typical of them and perhaps the cop is an arsehole and a wanker but if doing their job as they should be is contributing to bad rep then I guess they should just stop charging people when offences are committed and sit around reading "How to win friends and influence people". Then when people crash their nice new R6's we could just give them a chocolate fish, give them a hug and tell them to be a bit more carefull next time.

C'mon Spud, that little beauty would see all parties charged in every accident. Failed to stop when someone fails to give way? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Lou Girardin]

So what some people are saying is that really tight twisty's have to be negotiated at, say, 5 km/h?
That'll kill the Coromandel loop among others.

[spudchucka]

C'mon Spud, that little beauty would see all parties charged in every accident. Failed to stop when someone fails to give way? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
It was a nose to tail. In the least the driver should get a ticket for failing to stop short. Depending on the circumstances it would be careless use.

[Ixion]

So what some people are saying is that really tight twisty's have to be negotiated at, say, 5 km/h?
That'll kill the Coromandel loop among others.

[Shrug]. If that's what it takes, though I don't think I've ever found one THAT tight and blind. "Able to stop safely in the clear distance of road ahead" is what the Road Code says. Seems pretty simple to me. If you can't stop before you run out of visibility, slow down.

[Wolf]

[Shrug]. If that's what it takes, though I don't think I've ever found one THAT tight and blind. "Able to stop safely in the clear distance of road ahead" is what the Road Code says. Seems pretty simple to me. If you can't stop before you run out of visibility, slow down.
I always slow on blind corners and near hill crests - even the ones that I know what the road does on the other side, more so if I don't know the road and have no idea if the road makes a sharp turn with a reverse camber and banked gravel just over the crest.

Simple enough really. I really have no desire to come flying over a crest or around a blind turn and lose the road or collide with something on the other side.

I know of a lot of sharp blind corners that have driveways just around them - makes me think "WTF were they thinking?" We're talking rural, here - what, their farm's so small they couldn't put the sodding driveway a bit further down the road where anyone coming out of it has a good view and people coming around the corner have a chance to see there's a car/tractor/tanker/stock truck about to pull out? Whatever the demented reason, the driveways are there and pose a hazard - for which I slow down, having no super-human X-ray vision capabilities or precognition to tell me whether or not a car is about to pull out in front of me just around the bend.

Choosing the right lines also helps with visibility and on corners with good visibility you can travel at 100km/h without a worry or see that there are kids playing or cars waiting at side roads or driveways and prepare accordingly.

Still have to slow down when the visibility is reduced, though - assuming that the road is clear of hazards or that you have some super-human ability to react to a hazard three metres away at 100+ km/h is careless. Dad had a term for motorcyclists who behaved in that fashion - "Temporary New Zealanders." He didn't figure they'd be around for long at that rate...

[Rainbow Wizard]

It was a nose to tail. In the least the driver should get a ticket for failing to stop short. Depending on the circumstances it would be careless use.
Surely in the rider's position for that scenario any two-bit navigator would have simply pulled out & passed, even if it would have meant crossing the double yellow lines.

I must admit to not having the vehicle contact clearly defined but my first impression was that the truck was doing a U turn, and later had it explained that it was turning onto the highway. Because of the first impression I assumed the truck was across the path, not in line with it. Maybe you have access to information from another source?

In view of my comments do you still come to the same apportioning of blame?

[Lou Girardin]

It was a nose to tail. In the least the driver should get a ticket for failing to stop short. Depending on the circumstances it would be careless use.

Kindly explain how you know this or is it an assumption?
Regardless, I still say it'll be laughed out of court.

[spudchucka]

Kindly explain how you know this or is it an assumption?
Regardless, I still say it'll be laughed out of court.


it seems as a truck was turning onto the road in an area of double yellow lines, out of view on the other side of a crest


you're going along the road, clear view as much as the road permits, someone pulls out onto the road immediately in front of you and you hit them

I read this as being a nose to tail situation. The truck has pulled out onto the road, in the same lane but ahead of the M/C and on the other side of a blind crest, the M/C has failed to stop in the visible distance ahead.

How steep was the crest? Was it a virtual cliff that could fully conceal a god damned truck from 50 - 100 metres away? Lets then assume that the M/C flew through the air all Evil Kennevally because it must have been a fucken jump ramp, not a section of road. Either that or the rider was travelling at a great rate of knots or was riding along in a daze, either way he was careless and failed to see the truck.

If it wasn't a nose to tail then please correct me but I don't think it makes much difference. If people want more detailed assessments then they should supply full details. Otherwise I'll comment on the information provided and you can winge and moan like normal.

[spudchucka]

Maybe you have access to information from another source?
No. Thats just as it sounded to me from your post. If you find out the actual details in full I'll be happy to re-think my response.

[Ixion]

I read this as being a nose to tail situation. The truck has pulled out onto the road, in the same lane but ahead of the M/C and on the other side of a blind crest, the M/C has failed to stop in the visible distance ahead.
..

I assumed it was a T-boner, the truck across the road. Don't see it makes any difference. Either way, there was an obstacle on the road. The rider was unable to stop in time once he saw the obstacle. Could not stop in the clear road visible. End of story. Had he been cautious and come more slowly over the hill, he could have stopped in time.

[scumdog]

Kindly explain how you know this or is it an assumption?
Regardless, I still say it'll be laughed out of court.

I'll let you know when my first similar case gets 'laughed out of court', done heaps of them, either Fails to Stop Short or in more severe cases, Careless Use, either way they all have pleaded/found guilty.

[MikeL]

Surely it would depend on the exact circumstances of the particular accident (road configuration, visibility, unpredictable actions by other road users etc) as to whether charges would be laid? Or is there some suggestion that inability to stop in the available distance is either automatically a fault or a prima facie case?

In the case where a vehicle cuts in front of me then jams on the brakes suddenly before I have time to drop back would it be reasonable to prosecute me?

Or if another vehicle suddenly does a U-turn in front of me?

If you expect me to ride at such a speed that I can safely stop in the event of ANY unforeseen contingency I'll be reduced to 20 km/h.

Or better still, let's go back to the 5 mph limit with someone walking ahead with a red flag...

[Ixion]

Surely it would depend on the exact circumstances of the particular accident (road configuration, visibility, unpredictable actions by other road users etc) as to whether charges would be laid? Or is there some suggestion that inability to stop in the available distance is either automatically a fault or a prima facie case?

In the case where a vehicle cuts in front of me then jams on the brakes suddenly before I have time to drop back would it be reasonable to prosecute me?

Or if another vehicle suddenly does a U-turn in front of me?

If you expect me to ride at such a speed that I can safely stop in the event of ANY unforeseen contingency I'll be reduced to 20 km/h.

Or better still, let's go back to the 5 mph limit with someone walking ahead with a red flag...


Hm. The Road Code says ride so you can stop safely in the visible distance ahead.

Obviously , that distance can change, sometimes suddenly. In which case you must adjust to the new distance. Which we all do.

If the illegal or carelss/reckless/inconsiderate/dangerous acts of another mean that it is not possible for you to adjust to the new (now very short!) visible distance, then that is not your fault. You were not careless (assuming that there was nothing that could have reasonably indicated to you that it was going to happen thus).

It is similar to giving way. If turning you must give way to straight through traffic. But if I am turning on a green traffic light and someone runs the red light going straight through, I can hardly be deemed careless (per se) if I hit him.

But this is not the situation of the original post. There the lack of visibility was due to a hill crest. Those do not often suddenly appear.

After all, the word is "careless". Is zooming over a hill crest (or through a blind bend) so fast that you can't stop on the other side without hitting something "careful". I think not.

Whereas the examples you give, the rider could well be riding very carefully. It is the careless actions of another that cause the problem.

The Road Code offers advice not law. So the question becomes "You hit something. Were you being careful. Let us see what the Road Code says and consider your actions in the light of it's advice. Then we may decide if you were riding carefully or not"

(Incidentally in theory I think you could get a ticket even if there wasn't an accident, though it would be hard to prove)

[Wolf]

Whereas the examples you give, the rider could well be riding very carefully. It is the careless actions of another that cause the problem.
Problem is in one instance MikeL was talking about - dork cuts you off after a stupid passing manouevre and slams on his brakes in front of you - because you hit the rear of his vehicle, you will automatically be assumed to be at fault - by both the police and the insurance companies involved.

"The wanker rocketed past me, swung in front - missing me by three inches - then promptly slammed on the brakes" doesn't seem to register - all they see is the damage to the arse-end of his vehicle and assume you were the dick. You'll wind up liable for all damages incurred.

I've had dicks sitting at intersections stare at me approaching and then decide - when I'm only a few metres away - that they can get their car out in time - had some extremely hairy braking experiences out of those. Haven't hit any yet but one day they'll leave too little a margin and I won't have time to brake even though I am prepared to do so (I always assume the person stopped at the intersection staring at me is a moron who is going to suddenly drop the clutch and attempt to floor-it out of the side road, so my hand is poised over the brake lever and I'm mentally prepared for extreme braking.)

[scumdog]

Not always as bad as you think Wolf, I have seen somebody done for careless use after doing much what you said - pulling in front then slamming on the brakes.

Second car got off scot-free. (except for the panel damage of course - but the offender paid for that!)

[Ixion]

Problem is in one instance MikeL was talking about - dork cuts you off after a stupid passing manouevre and slams on his brakes in front of you - because you hit the rear of his vehicle, you will automatically be assumed to be at fault - by both the police and the insurance companies involved.

"The wanker rocketed past me, swung in front - missing me by three inches - then promptly slammed on the brakes" doesn't seem to register - all they see is the damage to the arse-end of his vehicle and assume you were the dick. You'll wind up liable for all damages incurred.

I've had dicks sitting at intersections stare at me approaching and then decide - when I'm only a few metres away - that they can get their car out in time - had some extremely hairy braking experiences out of those. Haven't hit any yet but one day they'll leave too little a margin and I won't have time to brake even though I am prepared to do so (I always assume the person stopped at the intersection staring at me is a moron who is going to suddenly drop the clutch and attempt to floor-it out of the side road, so my hand is poised over the brake lever and I'm mentally prepared for extreme braking.)


Granted. Proving that it was the other idiot that was careless can be tricky. In the case you instance it would (presumably) only be a problem if his brakes were better than yours ? If cut-in-on I'm usually hauling on the brakes fairly hard as soon as I see idiot coming in. Even if he doesn't slam on the brakes, odds are he'll do SOMETHING stupid. My observation is that if you see someone do something inconsiderate and stupid, they'll do something else inconsiderate and stupid.

The approaching-intersection-idiot-in-waiting one is tricky. I've never quite decided what's best. See idiot waiting , assume he may do something silly and back off just in case? Problem is , he sees you slow down and immediately decides that's a good reason to zoom out . Keep on at same speed, and like as not he *still* decides to zoom out - just when you cna't stop in time without heroics. (WHY do they wait until it's too late to do it safely, instead of earlier. What are their tiny little minds THINKING)

[spudchucka]

Problem is in one instance MikeL was talking about - dork cuts you off after a stupid passing manouevre and slams on his brakes in front of you - because you hit the rear of his vehicle, you will automatically be assumed to be at fault - by both the police and the insurance companies involved.

"The wanker rocketed past me, swung in front - missing me by three inches - then promptly slammed on the brakes" doesn't seem to register - all they see is the damage to the arse-end of his vehicle and assume you were the dick. You'll wind up liable for all damages incurred.
As a cop attending a crash like this you would hope for some good independant witnesses. If you don't have them then all you have to go on are the stories told by each driver and the physical evidence at the scene.

If a person's story doesn't match what you assess from the scene examination then you may become suspicious and favour the other person's version of events. In the end of it all you have to weigh up all the evidence and the statements made by the drivers and then reconstruct what actually happened. If it is obvious what happened and an offence has clearly been committed then you would favour prosecution. However if the statements are conflicting and there is a lack of physical evidence to support either story then prosecution may not be a possibility.

[Lou Girardin]

Not always as bad as you think Wolf, I have seen somebody done for careless use after doing much what you said - pulling in front then slamming on the brakes.

Second car got off scot-free. (except for the panel damage of course - but the offender paid for that!)

This happened to me, a guy jumped on the brakes just to be an arsehole, then accelerated and stomped on the brakes again. 2nd time caught me out. Then the slack-jawed cretin admitted doing it on purpose in front of witnesses. Regrettably he didn't get charged, but neither did I and he had to pay my excess etc.
There is some justice.

[Wolf]

If cut-in-on I'm usually hauling on the brakes fairly hard as soon as I see idiot coming in. Even if he doesn't slam on the brakes, odds are he'll do SOMETHING stupid. My observation is that if you see someone do something inconsiderate and stupid, they'll do something else inconsiderate and stupid.

Likewise - if someone comes swerving in front of me I generally have throttled off and applied the brakes before I'm consciously aware of having done so, but not all people drive like as big a Nana as you or I.

(WHY do they wait until it's too late to do it safely, instead of earlier. What are their tiny little minds THINKING)
They're morons? I've had people looking straight at me for several seconds - during which time I could have driven a bus out of the intersection - and then, when I'm at the point where, if our positions were reversed, I would not pull out of the intersection, they suddenly elect to attempt to pull out.

Scumdog and Spudchucka - thanks for your insights into this.

[igor]

And it's damn easy to see why their image is so bad when we so often encounter such jerk-off power-tripping attitudes that seem to pervade the force like a cancer. I hope there's some friggin top-end plod reading this forum and that they do something about correcting such attrocious behaviour. I not complaining about the job they do but I am highly critical of some of their attitudes. They get what they deserve.

looks like u need to get down to the local recruiting office and sign-up. or maybe u could jump the whole process and buy a sunday star times. in the job section there is an advertisement for police commissionair. you could get the job description and see if you qualify.

you could see if one reqiremnet is "know all" as it appears you seem to think you do.

and winja. leave little stewy kearns alone. hes a short man so suffering from this without you be-littling him.

i am like a hit and run accident.

hit then run. catch ya later

[lindacarter]

If anyone knows this pc they will understand why no one came to her rescue. In my opinion she intimidates and bullies women and enjoys locking them up for no reason. I was a victim of her tormenting ways. I still havent recovered.

[SMOKEU]

If anyone knows this pc they will understand why no one came to her rescue. In my opinion she intimidates and bullies women and enjoys locking them up for no reason. I was a victim of her tormenting ways. I still havent recovered.

Nice thread dredge!

[Ender EnZed]

Nice thread dredge!

Seven and a half years. Good effort!

[denill]

Nice thread dredge!

Don't see, anything wrong with Linda's posting here.

It is totally in keeping wth the thread.:yes:

[Maha]

Don't see, anything wrong with Linda's posting here.

It is totally in keeping wth the thread.:yes:

Agree, Nothing wrong with dredging a thread from years ago, they seem to be a more worthy topic than what's around here on a daily basis, and shit. Big plus is seeing the names of those who were around at the time, two cops on this page alone.

[SMOKEU]

Don't see, anything wrong with Linda's posting here.

It is totally in keeping wth the thread.:yes:

I never said there was anything wrong with that post.

[jasonu]

If anyone knows this pc they will understand why no one came to her rescue. In my opinion she intimidates and bullies women and enjoys locking them up for no reason. I was a victim of her tormenting ways. I still havent recovered.

How about a link or info about the Pamela Cox beating.

[Madness]

How about a link or info about the Pamela Cox beating.

It was 8 years ago according to the OP. Good luck finding info about it online now.

[Maha]

How about a link or info about the Pamela Cox beating.

There is enough beating of cox on here as it is, we don't need any more..........:confused:

[avgas]

Wonder woman got arrested by Pamela Cox?