to write a complain letter or not. (rant)

**spudchucka** · 31st May 2005, 07:08

Originally Posted by Ixion

But - in fairness, do cop radars maybe have a "wake up and show speed" mode where they come out of 'sleep" when they detect an illegal speed and show the speed? In which case he might have noticed "Ah , SOMEONE'S doing 84 kph. But I didn't notice who. I'll rattle this driver and see if she admits to it". Which is a bit less worrying. Don't know if that's how the radar things work though, I thought they had to point them at a target.

It sounds like the cop was stationary at the time. Depending on the radar unit it could be set to capture speeds from one direction only, however it is most likely a unit that captures speeds from both directions when in stationary mode.

The radar doesn't go into sleep mode at all, (unlike the operator) but if there is nothing to read they just sit there with a big fat 0 on the readout. When a vehicle comes into the beam they display the vehicles speed on the readout.

As explained above, in stationary mode the unit can pick up vehicles coming towards or going away from the radar unit. If at the time there are vehicles going in both directions it will usually display the highest speed or the signal from the vehicle that is giving the strongest reading, (usually the bigger of the two). Sometimes if there are multiple vehicles in the beam the readout will flick between the different speed readings. In these cases the operator needs to be able to visually determine which is the fast vehicle if they are to issue an infringement.

The radar isn't aimed at a target but rather pointed in an area of interest. The radar beam is relatively narrow but not such that it can be aimed at a specific target. Lasers are hand held and can be accurately aimed at any vehicle going in either direction.

**spudchucka** · 31st May 2005, 07:14

Originally Posted by bikerboy

Gee, a cop that feels it's perfectly fine to illegally detain the public "just in case".....will wonders ever cease?

Gee, another idiot who has no idea what the relevant laws actually allow.

**marty** · 31st May 2005, 08:52

with a bit of luck we'll soon be able to search people/cars/houses without a search warrant

**scumdog** · 31st May 2005, 10:07

Originally Posted by marty

with a bit of luck we'll soon be able to search people/cars/houses without a search warrant

Dang!! You mean we can't already???

**Coldkiwi** · 31st May 2005, 12:51

Originally Posted by spudchucka

The radar doesn't go into sleep mode at all, (unlike the operator) but if there is nothing to read they just sit there with a big fat 0 on the readout.

so does the radar have a doughnut mode instead?

j/k - you coppers here are a pretty good bunch. I just couldn't resist. Sorry. Really I am.

**scumdog** · 31st May 2005, 13:01

Originally Posted by Coldkiwi

so does the radar have a doughnut mode instead?

j/k - you coppers here are a pretty good bunch. I just couldn't resist. Sorry. Really I am.

You will be matey, rest assured you will be!!!!

**Lou Girardin** · 31st May 2005, 14:17

Originally Posted by Coldkiwi

so does the radar have a doughnut mode instead?

j/k - you coppers here are a pretty good bunch. I just couldn't resist. Sorry. Really I am.

No, but it does have flag fall on the meter.

**Phurrball** · 31st May 2005, 15:42

Wow, what a thread...

So many interesting things said, and interesting (if perhaps predictable) responses.

Firstly, I'm with Scumdog - what is up with WINJA? He appears to be making sense!? WINJA, can I have some of what you're on? It might improve my exam study

There is a difference between Scumdog suggesting a motorist is doing 200KM/H (clear hyperbole and demonstration of some sense of humour) and an unsubstantiated [as far as I know] assertion of 84KM/H - being a plausible speed that a confused/nervous/easily shocked person could 'confess' to unwittingly. This is the problem that aff man is suggesting with this conduct, and that that Stonechucker has distilled from the thread.

The pointing thing is an interesting one. I was pulled up for being a cheeky bugger last year. [I deserved it!] Tooting a friendly hello to an unlit mufti car, on an unlit road, sitting in radar 'silence' until any car went by gets you that...[WRT tooting - it was before 11pm and was not a residential area]

Random checks are fine (good even). Given the size of the vehicle fleet we all share the roads with every day: going in the opposite direction...waiting at intersections...sharing our lanes; I for one am very pleased to be pulled up from time to time to have my warrant, vehicle licensing, and breath checked. Hopefully it means that clowns who ain't following the rules will be less likely to come my way.

Random stops are part of the price we pay for the privilege of using the roading network in a vehicle of our choice, whenever we choose. It is not illegal detention to be stopped and to have your details, and those of the vehicle checked. [Correct me if I am wrong - I seem to recall in one of my statute book journeys that there was an amendment act passed at some stage (1986?) that allowed for such 'random' checks on motorists??]. I can't be sure on regulations or internal rules governing detention time etc - they would be interesting to know, and have been partially discussed here. Cases and rules on the point all seem [IMHO] to lean towards 'reasonableness' ie it is reasonable to delay access to a lawyer until back at the station, rather than wait at the roadside. (Someone tried this on after the NZ Bill of Rights was enacted)

We do give up some of our civil liberties on occasion for the greater good [Arguable depending on your position on the political/societal spectrum]. There is a legal theory that it is provable that 'small' penalties, and a high chance of getting caught work much better in modifying behaviour than huge penalties with a small chance of detection - it seems to me that this is what the policy allowing random stops is aiming at. I would suggest to anyone who is in any way upset with the conduct of any officer, to get his or her badge number (This is on all tickets BTW). Otherwise the horse has bolted.

As to Mikey's post - I'm not sure if there is a line in the sand as to when being pulled over becomes too much? If I was in his position, I'd collect evidence too, but rather than making a harassment complaint, I'd try and get it noted on the computer system that the car has been pulled over previously, and is OK. Whether this would stop being pulled over, I don't know, as calling in details seems to happen at the same time as pulling a car over. But it could stop delay once pulled over, and is less confrontational, so perhaps more likely to be workable? [Could the cops here tell me if I'm talking out my ars* on this one?] I agree with Mikey suggesting that them can be the breaks if you or your car are of a certain type - Scumdog is most likely right that there is a correlation between dodgy appearance and actual dodgyness.

[Insert memories of driving the mighty (Licensed, warranted and insured) 180B and its primer patches around Dunedin with a number 2 haircut. All delays averted by cooperation and polite demeanour.]

And perhaps the most salient point

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

No, but it does have flag fall on the meter.

[/überpost]

**marty** · 31st May 2005, 15:50

the land transport act 1998 tidied up all those amendments. there is record of the vehicle being checked on the system, but of course it has the be checked, to find out that it's been checked, if you know what i mean. and i'm sure mikey turning up at the police station with the attitude he alluded to wouldn't have endeared himself to the s/sgt....he had a reasonable issue (i believe), but basically shot himself in the foot.

**WINJA** · 31st May 2005, 17:38

Originally Posted by scumdog

C'mon man, you're starting to sound like the rest of 'us', where is the WINJA of old?? have you lost your soul man? what happened?

Seriously, once again you summed the whole thing up.

IM THE SAME WINJA SO DONT WORRY ,I STILL THINK YOU PIGS SUCK

**SPman** · 31st May 2005, 18:35

We do give up some of our civil liberties on occasion for the greater good [Arguable depending on your position on the political/societal spectrum].

Benjamin Franklin.......

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety..."

"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature."

"A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins."

Beware of people who claim to be helping you, while they put you in chains. ……….One link at a time.!

**phaedrus** · 31st May 2005, 19:23

Originally Posted by spudchucka

It sounds like the cop was stationary at the time. Depending on the radar unit it could be set to capture speeds from one direction only, however it is most likely a unit that captures speeds from both directions when in stationary mode.

The radar doesn't go into sleep mode at all, (unlike the operator) but if there is nothing to read they just sit there with a big fat 0 on the readout. When a vehicle comes into the beam they display the vehicles speed on the readout.

As explained above, in stationary mode the unit can pick up vehicles coming towards or going away from the radar unit. If at the time there are vehicles going in both directions it will usually display the highest speed or the signal from the vehicle that is giving the strongest reading, (usually the bigger of the two). Sometimes if there are multiple vehicles in the beam the readout will flick between the different speed readings. In these cases the operator needs to be able to visually determine which is the fast vehicle if they are to issue an infringement.

The radar isn't aimed at a target but rather pointed in an area of interest. The radar beam is relatively narrow but not such that it can be aimed at a specific target. Lasers are hand held and can be accurately aimed at any vehicle going in either direction.

Now that i've had time to calm down, i can see this sort of thing happen. Thanks for the description of how the radars work, 'twas quite helpful.

a question about the laser, could they get confused if they were to hit the top of a knobbly tyre by accident?(since the top of the tyre is going forwards at double the road speed)

**spudchucka** · 31st May 2005, 19:54

Originally Posted by phaedrus

a question about the laser, could they get confused if they were to hit the top of a knobbly tyre by accident?(since the top of the tyre is going forwards at double the road speed)

I can't really answer that one, however it seems highly unlikely as when aiming a laser at a biker most would aim it at the centre of mass, which in reality would be the headlight or riders torso, depending on the configuration of the bike. The leading or top edge of the front tyre is the last place you would aim a laser.

**Phurrball** · 31st May 2005, 20:42

Originally Posted by SPman

Benjamin Franklin.......

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety..."

"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature."

"A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins."

Beware of people who claim to be helping you, while they put you in chains. ……….One link at a time.!

Interesting, BF was obviously a Natural Law thinker. The word essential in the first quote is probably of relevance here - owning and riding/driving a vehicle is not an essential right, but a privilege many mistake for a right...

I am pretty happy with my common law and statutory protctions personally. What I am not happy with is the fact that too few know them (and a swag of other legal rights) well enough to assert them when the brown stuff is hitting the fan.

Originally Posted by marty

the land transport act 1998 tidied up all those amendments. there is record of the vehicle being checked on the system, but of course it has the be checked, to find out that it's been checked, if you know what i mean. and i'm sure mikey turning up at the police station with the attitude he alluded to wouldn't have endeared himself to the s/sgt....he had a reasonable issue (i believe), but basically shot himself in the foot.

Thanks Marty -I share your thoughts on the latter. 1998 was a recodification to tidy up a statute messy with amendments - am pretty sure that that the ability to stop any motorist arose in a amendment prior to this...

Good [maybe?] to see a hint of the WINJA of old appear...

**StoneChucker** · 31st May 2005, 21:49

Originally Posted by spudchucka

I can't really answer that one, however it seems highly unlikely as when aiming a laser at a biker most would aim it at the centre of mass, which in reality would be the headlight or riders torso, depending on the configuration of the bike. The leading or top edge of the front tyre is the last place you would aim a laser.

Screw you buddy, you calling my torso the centre of mass, on a 172kg bike??? Get stuffed, I'm not THAAAAAT fat