'Boy Racer' laws and bikers?

[flyin]

Ban traffic lights! They only incite drag racing. All intersections should have scantily clad babes with stop go flags. At least then we will not be in a hurry to move on.

Absolutly!!
in the UK the traffic lights go back to orange before green!! cool a!! would be great for racing (designed so pedestrians can still go on orange you have to give way if they are there or sumthin......) pity everyone goes as soon as the lights flash orange.....

[Wolf]

Wheelies and stoppies are not what the legislation was intended for. These would be dealt with by way of a careless or dangerous charge depending on the circumstances.

But is not learning how to do stoppies part and parcel with learning proper control of the bike? If you know how to do stoppies you're probably skilled enough not to get into too many braking difficulties and probably less likely to panic and FUBT (F*** Up, Big Time) if you do. How can practising stoppies be deemed dangerous or careless? That'd be like outlawing skid-control lessons.

the pollies do a half arsed job and then pat themselves on the back for being such clever bastards

Please remember: "Politics" comes from two words - "Poly" meaning "many" and "Ticks" - small blood-sucking insects.

[Ixion]

But is not learning how to do stoppies part and parcel with learning proper control of the bike? .. How can practising stoppies be deemed dangerous or careless? That'd be like outlawing skid-control lessons.

.

Well, perhaps not on the public road ? Skid control lessons are usually on private property .

[Wolf]

Well, perhaps not on the public road ? Skid control lessons are usually on private property .

Awww, go on, ruin all our fun!

[Drunken Monkey]

It wouldn't stand up too well in Court, I think this is very unlikely.

That's true, but some officers still try it on as a form of intimidation to people they figure either can't afford to fight the ticket/charge in court, don't know they could/should fight it, or honestly thought because the officer told them off, they _must_ have been in the wrong.
Victorian police used to issue the tickets anyway, if there was any doubt, as standard procedure. They used to drop the charges pretty quickly if you challenged it in court, but a lot of people didn't try/know they should have challenged. Not sure if this is still SOP, this was over 15 years ago...

The other dirty tactic my old man said they used as 'standard procedure' was to call people in for an interview and get a statement from them, with the specific intent to use the interviewee's own statement against them (the statement being the only evidence they'll get). A lot people don't realise you can:
(a) avoid the inconvenience of going to the station to make a statement by insisting the officer(s) come and visit you, at a time that suits you.
(b) outright refuse to make any statements at all until they arrest you. With the work involved in arresting someone just for a sniff they may incriminate themselves in their statement, nothing will usually eventuate.
I am talking pretty minor things here though, typically traffic/vehicle offenses, rather than violent criminal activities (although I imagine the principle is the same - e.g. get a robbery suspect in for a statement with little more than a 'hunch' and see if he screws up his alibi?)

[Drunken Monkey]

But is not learning how to do stoppies part and parcel with learning proper control of the bike? If you know how to do stoppies you're probably skilled enough not to get into too many braking difficulties and probably less likely to panic and FUBT (F*** Up, Big Time) if you do. How can practising stoppies be deemed dangerous or careless? That'd be like outlawing skid-control lessons.

Probably more of an issue that you're doing it on a public road. That's what closed circuits are used for, ie the Ford or BMW advanced driver training days usually hire out Pukekohe so people can emergency brake to their heart's content. I beleive it is illegal to 'test' your emergency braking on a public road. "No traffic around" is probably never a valid excuse for anything, as there was obviously at least 1 other vehicle (i.e. the police car) on the road there to nab ya.
Also, the LTNZ beleives skilled drivers are over confident, and no more likely to avoid an accident than a regular incompetant...

[edit]
ugh, that was a waste of disk space. Sorry guys, didn't see someone had already said this...

[spudchucka]

The other dirty tactic my old man said they used as 'standard procedure' was to call people in for an interview and get a statement from them, with the specific intent to use the interviewee's own statement against them (the statement being the only evidence they'll get). A lot people don't realise you can:

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Have a read of it.

[Drunken Monkey]

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Have a read of it.

Look, I'm not trying to be a smart-arse here. Whether you think it's legal/illegal, moral/immoral, doesn't detract from the reality that it can and does happen form time to time. What is your point? I'm guessing you're reffering to something in Chapter 4? Are you saying everyone knows and understands their rights and obligations under this section of the Bill, therefore my statement was false - that it does not, and never has happened?

[onearmedbandit]

Some weeks ago OneArmedBandito related being pulled up in Chch by a bikie cop for lifting the front wheel a little on take off.

If you are reading this OAB I have been wondering, was it this new law that they were throwing at you or the old "dangerous driving" bit. Also, is there any progress on your case (just out of interest)?

Careless use was the charge. Received the notice in the mail a couple of days later, still waiting for the summons. 2 good cops out of 3, my luck the asshole cop was most the most senior. The guy didn't say a word to me once, just stared at me. Looked like a right c#*t.

[TonyB]

The only bit that I think is really a horses arse is the unnecessary / excessive display of speed or acceleration part of the law. Its too subjective and needs to be more accurately defined.

Have to agree with that. Imagine this: your sitting at the lights on your GSXR1000 or whatever. It can do 0-100 in 3 secs easily. Next to you is a bloke in a Commodore SS (they seem to love trying to take bikes on). The lights turn green, you accelerate to the speed limit sedately for your bike- say enough to to 0-100 in 6 secs. The bloke in the SS thinks your trying to drag him off and floors it. He roars past you (you stopped accelerating once the speed limit was reached, whatever it may be) and slams into a car that is pulling out onto the road causing an accident resulting in injury or death. The SS driver thinks you were racing him, other witnesses saw you initially accelerate away from what they know is a fast car, so THEY think you were racing.
Are you in trouble?

[peterjdaly]

Careless use was the charge. Received the notice in the mail a couple of days later, still waiting for the summons. 2 good cops out of 3, my luck the asshole cop was most the most senior. The guy didn't say a word to me once, just stared at me. Looked like a right c#*t.

Had to laugh when I read this one. I was one of the apparently decent two. The senior one is my boss, and actually he isn't a bad bloke. I was keen to see you get an instant fine, but the boss insisted on the Careless. To be honest, it did look a little excessive. Cool, but excessive.

Bottom line is, if you are struggling to keep the wheels of your bike on the road, you're probably doing something wrong.

I'm pleased to say the before too long there just might be two ST1100-Ps riding the mean streets of ChCh, looking for you...........tee hee

The wheelie you did would have looked more like an accident if you hadn't leaned forward over the tank before you wound the throttle open. I was gobsmacked when I saw the controls on your bike. COOL !!

[spudchucka]

Look, I'm not trying to be a smart-arse here. Whether you think it's legal/illegal, moral/immoral, doesn't detract from the reality that it can and does happen form time to time. What is your point? I'm guessing you're reffering to something in Chapter 4? Are you saying everyone knows and understands their rights and obligations under this section of the Bill, therefore my statement was false - that it does not, and never has happened?

I'm not suggesting that there has never been any dodgy statements taken. But the bill of rights act has changed the way police deal with people. As soon as a cop forms good cause to suspect that an offence has been committed they have to caution the person by saying that they are not obliged to say anything and that anything they do say can be given in evidence.

Any statements gained from a person that has not been properly cautioned and advised of the rights pursuant to the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 will not be allowed as evidence in Court. Therefore, (scoff if you want to but its true), it is not worth taking a statement from an offender unless you have followed the proper due process.

Any hint of a statement obtained contrary to these rights will result in the evidence being struck out. The cop involved will simply look like a dishonest twat to the Court and it isn't worth having that happen.

Cops know this and learn very quickly that it isn't worth while cutting corners and doing things half arsed if you intend taking somebody to Court.

Why do you think that video interviews are the norm these days? Because the process is then totally transparent to the Court and it cannot be refuted.

When video interviews were first introduced lawyers were quick to tell their clients to go on video because they believed that they would catch the cops out and get a lot of people off. That didn't happen, in fact quite the opposite happened. They saw that they could no longer stand up and make a BS suggestion that the cop ignored due process and infringed their clients rights by not cautioning them before making a statement. Now its just a matter of playing a video to the Court and everyone can see whether or not the statement was obtained legitimately.

I don't know how long ago your old man was a cop or traffic officer but a hell of a lot has changed over the last 10 or 15 years.

[Wolf]

... lawyers were quick to tell their clients to go on video because they believed that they would catch the cops out and get a lot of people off. That didn't happen, in fact quite the opposite happened. They saw that they could no longer stand up and make a BS suggestion that the cop ignored due process and infringed their clients rights by not cautioning them before making a statement.

Ha ha! Love it when lawyers open fire on their own foot with both barrels.

[Wolf]

Had to laugh when I read this one. I was one of the apparently decent two. The senior one is my boss, ...

Oh Gods, another one. Moderator, delete all my previous posts about speeding until I can buy this guy off, please.

Heh. Small world, eh, OneArmedBandit?

[spudchucka]

Have to agree with that. Imagine this: your sitting at the lights on your GSXR1000 or whatever. It can do 0-100 in 3 secs easily. Next to you is a bloke in a Commodore SS (they seem to love trying to take bikes on). The lights turn green, you accelerate to the speed limit sedately for your bike- say enough to to 0-100 in 6 secs. The bloke in the SS thinks your trying to drag him off and floors it. He roars past you (you stopped accelerating once the speed limit was reached, whatever it may be) and slams into a car that is pulling out onto the road causing an accident resulting in injury or death. The SS driver thinks you were racing him, other witnesses saw you initially accelerate away from what they know is a fast car, so THEY think you were racing.
Are you in trouble?

Thats pretty subjective, if you never exceeded the speed limit its a bit rich to say you were "racing". If you did as you say accelerate to the speed limit quickly for a period of only 6 seconds I don't think you could conclude that you were racing.